THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

DAVIS 


STATE  OF  CALIFORNIA 
DEPARTMENT  OF  PUBLIC  WORKS 

DIVISION  OF  ENGINEERING  AND  IRRIGATION 

EDWARD   HYATT,  STATE  ENCilNEEH 

BULLETIN  No.  13  QZ 

AT. 

The  Development  of  the  Upper 
Sacramento  River 

By  PAUL  BAILEY 

An  Appendix  to  the  Summary  Report 

to  the  Legislature  of  1927 
on  the 

Water  Resources  of  California 

and  a 

Coordinated  Plan  for  Their  Development 


Containing 
Cooperative  Report  with  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Reclamation 

on 

Iron  Canyon  Project 

By  WALKER  R.  YOUNG 


CALIFORNIA   STATE   PRINTING   OFFICE 
SACBAUENTO,  192  8 
50667 


o 

< 
u 

o 
y 
% 

< 

< 

m 

I— ( 

H 
Eh 
I— I 
in 

< 

Q 

H 
K 


•^  Mllfel 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


Pag.- 

FOREWORD ■> 

ENGINEERING  ADVISORY  COMMITTEE 7 

ORGANIZATION 0 

LIST  OF  PLATE'S II 

CyHAPTER    I 

INTRODUCTION  AND  SUMMARY 13 

Chapter  II. 

THE  MAIN  SACRAMENTO  RIVER  DRAINAGE  BASIN 16 

Drainage  area  between  Red  Bluff  and  mouth  of  Feather  River 16 

Drainage  area  upstream  from  Red  Bluff 16 

Water  supply 17 

Reservoir  sites 24 

Chapter  III. 

KENNETT  RESERVOIR  SITE 25 

General 25 

Reservoir  capacity 25 

Water  supply 26 

Water  jdeld  for  irrigation 29 

Power  yield 39 

Flood  control 44 

Improvements  flooded  by  reservoir 45 

TjTDe  of  dam 47 

Layout  at  dam 47 

Cost  estimates 49 

Dam  height  selected  for  "Coordinated  Plan" 51 

Chapter  IV. 

GEOLOGY  OF  KENNETT  DAM  SITE 55 

Diamond  drill  explorations 55 

Report  of  Prof.  Geo.  D.  Louderback,  Geologist 55 

Chapter  V. 

REPORT  ON  IRON  CANYON  PROJECT,  OCTOBER,  1925,  BY  WALKER  R.  YOUNG, 

ENGINEER,  U.  S.  BUREAU  OF  RECLAMATION 61 

Letter  of  transmittal 62 

Table  of  contents 63 

Synopsis 70 

Summary  of  results 72 

Conclusions 77 

Recommendation 78 

Body  of  report 80 

Exhibits 153 

Preliminary  estimates 176 

Water  supply  and  power  studies 190 

Chapter  VI. 
REPORT   OF   THE   BOARD   OF  ENGINEERS   ON   THE   IRON   CANYON    PROJECT, 

MAY  7.   1920 201 


FOREWORD. 


This  bulletin  is  one  of  a  series  appended  to  the  "Summary  Report 
on  the  Water  Resources  of  California  and  a  Coordinated  Plan  for 
their  Development"  that  was  presented  to  the  Legislature  of  1927.  It 
is  part  of  the  investigation  of  the  water  resources  of  the  State  com- 
menced in  1921.  This  investigation  comprised  a  survey  of  water  sup- 
plies and  flood  flows  throughout  the  State,  a  determination  of  their 
characteristics,  an  estimate  of  the  present  and  future  needs  for  water, 
and  the  formulation  of  a  comprehensive  and  coordinated  plan  for 
future  development  in  order  to  insure  adequate  water  supplies  for  all 
purposes.  The  1927  report  concludes  this  investigation.  The  entire 
series  of  bulletins  pertaining  to  the  1927  report  are : 

Bui.  12 — "Summary  Report  on  the  Water  Resources  of  California 
and  a  Coordinated  Plan  for  their  Development."  (A 
report  to  the  Legislature  of  1927.) 

BUL.  13— "THE  DEVELOPMENT  OP  THE  UPPER  SACRA- 
MENTO RIVER." 

Bui.  14— "The  Control  of  Floods  by  Reservoirs." 

Bui.  15 — "The  Coordinated  Plan  of  Water  Development  in  the 
Sacramento  Valley." 

Bui.  16 — "The  Coordinated  Plan  of  Water  Development  in  the 
San  Joaquin  Valley." 

Bui.  17 — "The  Coordinated  Plan  of  Water  Development  in  South- 
ern California." 

Other  bulletins  pertaining  to  these  investigations  published  prior  to 
the  1927  report  are : 

Bui.     4 — "Water  Resources  of  California."     (A  report  to  the  Legis- 
lature of  1923  on  the  first  two  years  of  investigation.) 
Bui.     5 — "Flow  in  California  Streams." 
Bui.     6 — "Water  Requirements  of  California  Lands." 
Bui.     9 — "A  Supplemental  Report  on  the  Water  Resources  of  Cali- 
fornia."    (A  report  to  the  Legislature  of  1925.) 
Bui.  11 — "Ground  Water  Resources  of  the  Southern  San  Joaquin 
Valley." 

The  first  appropriation  for  the  investigation  of  the  water  resources 
of  California  was  made  by  Chapter  889  of  the  1921  Statutes,  in  the 
amount  of  $200,000.  This  resulted  in  the  publication  of  Bulletins  Nos. 
4,  5  and  6.  These  contain  a  complete  inventory  of  all  the  waters 
within  the  State's  boundaries,  an  estimate  of  the  future  needs  of  water 
for  all  purposes,  and  a  preliminary  comprehensive  plan  for  ultimate 
development  that  will  secure  the  greatest  public  service  from  the  State's 
limited  water  supply. 

No  provision  was  made  for  the  continuance  of  the  investigations  by 
tlie  1923  Legislature,  but  at  the  urgent  request  of  the  farmers  of  the 
southern  San  Joaquin  Valley  the  Chambers  of  Commerce  of  San  Fran- 
cisco and  Los  Angeles  advanced  $90,000  for  the  study  of  a  first  unit  of 
the  comprehensive  plan  that  would  relieve  the  stress  in  a  section  of  the 
State  most  in  need  of  an  imported  water  supply.  With  this  money, 
works  were  planned  that  would  transport  the  surplus  waters  of  the 


FOREWORD— Continued. 

Sacramento  drainage  basin  into  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  and  make  a 
new  supply  available  for  the  southern  half  of  the  valley.  An  account 
of  this  work  is  published  in  Bulletin  No.  9,  a  report  to  the  Legislature 
of  1925. 

Chapter  477  of  the  1925  Statutes  made  $150,000  available  to  the 
Divi:sion  for  completion  of  the  work. 

Parallel  with  the  Avater  resources  investigation,  the  Division  entered 
into  a  contract  with  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Reclamation  in  Janu- 
ary, 1924,  for  further  study  of  the  Iron  Canyon  project.  Although 
this  study  has  been  pursued  as  an  individual  project  for  irrigating  a 
portion  of  the  Sacramento  Valley  floor  and  generating  incidental 
power,  since  it  concerns  a  reservoir  site  on  an  accessible  stream  con- 
taining a  large  surplus  of  water,  it  is  of  material  interest  to  a 
"Coordinated  Plan"  of  development  for  the  Great  Central  Valley. 
Therefore,  the  entire  report  on  the  Iron  Canyon  project  has  been 
included  in  this  volume. 


ENGINEERING  ADVISORY  COMMITTEE. 


This  bulletin  has  been  ])repared  in  consultation  with  a  eoniniittee  of 
engineers,  who  advised  in  tiie  preparation  of  the  "Coordinated  Plan." 
They  are : 

Louis  C.  Hill  B.  A.  Etcheverry 

J.  B.  LipPiNCOTT  F.  C.  Herrmann 

Wm.  Muliiolland  Walter  L.  Huber 

A.  J.  Cleary  a.  Kempkey 
G.  A.  Elliott 

Cooperating-  with  committee : 

F.  E.  Bonner, 
District  Engineer,  U.  S.  Forest  Service,  representing  the  Federal  Power 

Commission  in  California. 

A.   V.   GUILLOU, 
Assistant    Chief    Engineer,    State   Railroad    Commission. 

L.  S.  Ready, 
Formerly  Chief  Engineer  of  State  Railroad  Commission. 

C.  S.  Ridley, 

Major,  Corps  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  Army,  member  and  secretary  of 

California  Debris  Commission. 


ORGANIZATION. 


B.  B.  MKKK, Director  of  I'uhUc  M'orks 

EDWARD  HYATT .S'/«/e  Engineer 

With  the  exception  of  tlie  cooperative  report  on  the  Iron  Canyon 
project  Avliich  was  made  by  the  organization  of  the  United  States 
Bureau  of  Reclamation,  Walker  R.  Young  in  charge,  this  bulletin 
and  the  "Summary'  Report  on  the  Water  Resources  of  California  and 
a  Coordinated  Plan  for  their  Development"  have  been  prepared  by: 

PAUL  BAILEY* 
A.  D.  Edmonston,  Principal  Assistant. 


T.  B.  Waddell 
Wm.  S.  Post 
A.  N.  BuRCH 
Gerald  Jones 


Chief  Assistants. 

Percy  Jones 
A.  M.  Wells 
Chester  Marliave 
J.  J.  Haley,  Jr. 


C.  B.  Meyer 
J.  H.  Peaslee 
R.  L.  Wing 


Senior  Office  Engineers. 

W.  A.  Perkins 

E.  W.  Case 

G.  Stubblefield 


Junior  Office  Engineers. 


T.  Neuman 

L.  C.  JOPSON 

E.  W.  Roberts 

U.  B.  GiLROY 

L.  N.  Clinton 
C.  W.  Roberts 
Laura  Munson 
Thomas  Claussen 

B.  A.  Reber 
A.  W.  Reber 

L.  E.  Anderson 
P.  T.  Alexander 

C.  F.  Marshall 
Wm.  J.  O'Connell 
11.  M.  Sturges 
Harold  White 

P.  L.  Blair 

n.  S.  Marshall 


Oscar  Blumberg 
J.  R.  Jahn 
D.  S.  Hays 

A.  P.  BOSWORTH 

J.  R.  Meskimmons 
W.  A.  Dorcas 
II.  Gerharz 
J,  H.  Knapp 
M.  H.  Blote 
P.  H.  Lovering 
Thomas  Lewis 
W.  R.  McLean 
P.  W.  Porter 

H.  N.   SULLIGER 

V.  GiVAN 

J.    H.    McCORMICK 

D.  S.  Cleavinger 
H.  L.  Butler 


*  Formerly  Director  of  Public  Works  and  State  Engineer  (resigned  August  31, 
1927).  Manuscript  completed  for  publication,  after  resignation,  through  the  courte.sy 
of  B.  B.  Meek,  Director  of  Public  Works. 


10  WATER  RESOURCES  OP  CALIFORNIA. 

Delineator's. 

Jos.  T.  ]\Iaottire  C.  L.  Greene 

E.  X.  Sawtelle  J.  W.  McPartland 

Field  Engineers  and  'Topographers. 

11.  S.  Williams  F.  L.  Elam 

E.  D.  Stafford  J.  H.  Gibson 

J.  F.  Taylor  Millard  Dawson 

C.  C.  Vance  Ray  Vernon 
Glenn  Lang  Ward  Eisan 

D.  E.  Frazier 

Engineering  Aids. 

V.    L.    FiREBAUGH  E.    R.    IIlNNANT 

E.  H.  Ford  G.  R.  King 

C.  W.  Frazier  F.  Montealegre 

Geo.  Garlinghouse  Cleo  C.  Osborne 

C.  R.  Haoberg  D.   G.   Spellman 

C.  A.  Harper  Dewey  Turner 
Leslie  Helgesson  G.  Zucco 

D.  J.  Stout  H.  Neuman 
J.  G.  Meyer  R.  H.  Wight 
W.  J.  Feeney  W.  L.  Pease 
S.  E.  Perkins 


LIST  OF  PLATES. 


PLATES  ACCOMPANYING  REPORT  ON  UPPER   SACRAMENTO  RIVER  BY  DIVISION  OF 

ENGINEERING  AND  IRRIGATION. 

Plate  No.  Page 

A — Three  units  of  comprehensive  plan  on  upper  Sacramento  River 14 

B. — Space  required  in  Kennett  reservoir  to  control  floods  on  Sacramento  River 44 

C. — Layout  at  Kennett  dam  and  reservoir  area  and  capacity  curves 48 

D. — Cost  of  reservoir  capacity  and  unit  yield  of  water  and  power  from  Kennett  reservoir. .  .  52 

E. — Location  of  diamond  drill  borings  at  Kennett  dam  site 56 

F. — Log  of  diamond  drill  borings  at  Kennett  dam  site 56 


PLATES  ACCOMPANYING    REPORT  ON  IRON  CANYON  PROJECT 

BY  WALKER  R.  YOUNG. 

Plate  No.  Page 

1. — General  location  map 69 

2. — Iron  Canyon  project  map 78 

3. — Anderson-Cottonwood  Irrigation  District  soil  map 192 

4. — Capacity  and  area  curves — Iron  Canyon  reservoir 193 

5. — Rating  curve — Red  Bluff  aaging  station 194 

6.— Rainfall,  run-off  curve 195 

7.— Run-off  of  Sacramento  River  at  Red  Bluff 196 

8. — Graphs  of  operation — Iron  Canyon  reservoir _.  196 

9. — Power  demand  curves 197 

10. — Power  output  curves 198 

11. — Spillway  crest  gates  for  Iron  Canyon  dam — crest  at  elev.  400 198 

12. — Spillway  crest  gates  for  Iron  Canyon  dam — crest  at  elev.  405.5 198 

13. — Movable  drum  gates  for  Iron  Canyon  dam — crest  at  elev.  405.5. 198 

14. — Bend  embankment 198 

15. — Cross  section  of  Iron  Canyon  dam  and  power  plant 198 

16. — Red  Bank  Creek  diversion  site — topography 198 

17. — Diversion  works — general  map  and  layout 198 

18. — Diversion  works — details 198 

19. — Diversion  works — details 198 

20. — Diversion  works — East  Side  dike 198 

21. — Mooney  Island  power  plant  and  wasteway 198 

22. — Profile  of  Sacramento  River — Red  Bluff  to  Mooney  Island  Slough 198 

23. — Key  to  canal  profiles 199 

24. — Canal  profiles 200 

25. — Typical  sections — main  canal 200 

26. — Tj^iical  sections — Red  Bank  pump  canal 200 


PLATES  ACCOMPANYING  REPORT  OF  THE  BOARD  OF  ENGINEERS  ON  IRON  CANYON 

PROJECT,  MAY  7,  1920. 

Page 
Exhibit  A. — Geologic  cross-section  of  lower  Iron  Canyon  dam  site  and  geologic  profile  of  Sacra- 
mento Canyon  through  Locations  I,  II  and  III 203 

Exhibit  B. — General  location  map,  Iron  Canyon  dam  site 205 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  13 


CHAPTER  I. 


INTRODUCTION  AND  SUMMARY. 

The  Sacramento  River,  upstream  from  the  mouth  of  the  Feather,  is 
the  most  important  of  all  streams  tributary  to  the  Great  Central  Valley 
of  California.  With  12,100  square  miles  of  mountain  and  foothill 
drainage  area,  it  produces  a  mean  seasonal  run-olf  of  12,400,000  acre- 
feet,  one-half  of  the  run-off  from  the  entire  Sacramento  drainage  area 
and  one-third  of  all  the  waters  of  the  Great  Central  Valley.  The  bulk 
of  the  waters  surplus  to  the  future  needs  of  the  Sacramento  Valley  lies 
in  this  stream.  Large  reservoir  capacity  will  be  required  to  equalize 
its  flow  in  order  that  this  surplus  may  become  available  for  use. 
Therefore,  a  major  project  to  develop  the  surplus  waters  of  the  Sacra- 
mento Valley  is  contingent  upon  the  feasibility  of  constructing  storage 
works  of  large  capacity  on  the  main  Sacramento  River. 

A  reconnaissance  survey  was  run  the  entire  length  of  the  main 
channel  in  search  of  possible  reservoir  sites.  Only  one  site  of  large 
capacity  was  found.  Its  dam  lies  five  miles  below  the  confluence  with 
the  Pit  River  and  backs  water  up  the  upper  Sacramento,  the  Pit,  the 
McCloud,  Squaw  Creek  and  numerous  small  streams  and  gulches  so 
that,  although  the  reservoir  is  comparatively  narrow,  it  has  a  large 
capacity.  The  dam  foundations  have  been  explored  with  the  diamond 
drill  and  have  been  found  adequate  for  the  construction  of  a  reservoir 
up  to  10,000,000  acre-feet  capacity.  Such  a  reservoir  would  yield  each 
year,  in  addition  to  present  use,  4,600,000  acre-feet  of  water  equalized 
for  the  requirements  of  irrigation  and  would  warrant  a  power  plant 
of  500,000  k.v.a.  capacity  below  the  dam.  This  site  is  called  Kennett, 
from  the  nearby  town  of  that  name.  Two  other  sites  were  located  in 
the  Sacramento  Canyon,  but  the  cost  of  storage  would  exceed  that  at 
Kennett  and  they  would  overlap  the  larger  Kennett  reservoir. 

Fifty  miles  downstream  from  the  Kennett  site  on  the  main  channel 
of  the  Sacramento  River  is  the  proposed  Iron  Canyon  reservoir. 
Topographically  this  reservoir  could  be  constructed  to  a  capacity  of 
3,000,000  acre-feet.  However,  the  none  too  favorable  foundations  for 
a  dam  limit  its  capacity  to  1,120,000  acre-feet.  The  Iron  Canyon 
project,  including  both  the  reservoir  and  the  lands  to  be  irrigated 
from  it,  has  been  under  investigation  at  intervals  since  1902  by  the 
United  States  Bureau  of  Reclamation  and  the  State  Engineer  in 
cooperation.  The  latest  report,  recently  completed  by  Walker  R. 
Young,  engineer  of  the  Bureau  of  Reclamation,  is  included  in  this 
volume.  This  report  estimates  the  yield  of  a  1,120,000  acre-foot  reser- 
voir at  800,000  acre-feet  of  water  per  year  additional  to  present  use 
and  equalized  for  the  needs  of  irrigation.  It  finds  that  a  power  plant 
of  100,000  k.v.a.  capacity  would  be  warranted  at  the  foot  of  the  dam. 
One-third  of  the  area  of  the  Anderson-Cottonwood  Irrigation  District 
would  be  flooded  by  this  reservoir. 

Both  the  Kennett  and  the  Iron  Canyon  reservoir  sites  lie  upstream 
from  the  main  body  of  agricultural  land  on  the  floor  of  the  Sacramento 
Valley  and  are  in  the  physical  position  to  serve  any  part  of  these  lands 


14  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


with  irrigation  water.  Both  of  these  reservoirs  are  included  in  the 
preliminary  comprehensive  plan*  for  ultimate  development  of  the 
State's  "waters  presented  to  tlie  192.'>  Leg:islature.  They  both  will  be 
required  ultimately  because  the  Iron  Canyon  site,  being  50  miles 
MoAvnstream,  has  2609  square  miles  of  drainage  area  tributary  to  it 
that  is  not  controlled  b}^  Kennett.  Tliis  produces  an  average  run-off 
of  2,536,000  acre-feet  per  year. 

Tlie  Iron  Canyon  reservoir  is  not  included  in  the  "Coordiiuited  Plan" 
presented  to  the  1927  Legislature,  however,  since  its  capacity  is  insuffi- 
cient to  meet  the  needs  of  this  plan.  The  "Coordinated  Plan"  selects 
ihe  units  of  tlie  comprehensive  ])lan  for  ultimate  development  from 
which  the  greatest  public  service  ma\-  be  obtained  through  the  next 
half  century.  It  provides  for  coordinating  the  operation  of  these 
units  to  secure  the  solution  of  tlie  outstanding  water  problems  that 
threaten  future  growth.  It  provides  for  all  the  needs  for  water  on  the 
floor  of  the  Sacramento  Valley  during  the  next  half  century,  including 
irrigation,  navigation  and  salt  water  control,  together  with  a  surplus 
for  use  in  the  San  Joaquin  Valley.  It  would  cut  flood  flows  in  lialf 
on  the  ui)per  part  of  the  Sacramento  River  and  develop  a  large  amount 
of  electric  power.  All  these  things  could  not  be  accomiilished  M-ere  the 
smaller  Iron  Canyon  reservoir  substituted  in  the  "Coordinated  Plan" 
in  place  of  Kennett.  Further,  the  dam  foundations  are  more  favorable 
at  Kennett  than  at  Iron  Canyon  and  no  agricultural  lands  are  flooded, 
Avliile  the  unit  cost  of  producing  water  and  power  is  about  the  same. 
Therefore,  the  interests  of  the  State  are  best  served  by  giving  preference 
to  the  Kennett  site.  Undoubtedly  at  some  time  in  the  future  the 
run-off  from  the  drainage  area  between  these  two  reservoirs  will  be 
needed.  The  only  way  it  can  be  obtained  is  through  the  construction 
of  the  Iron  Canj'on  reservoir. 

The  "Coordinated  Plan"  proposes  the  construction,  amongst  others, 
of  a  dam  at  the  Kennett  site  to  the  initial  height  of  420  feet.  At  this 
height  the  reservoir  Avould  have  a  capacity  of  2,940,000  acre-feet,  large 
enough  to  yield  annually,  over  and  above  present  use.  2,838,000  acre- 
feet  of  water  equalized  for  irrigation  needs  when  operated  primarily 
for  this  purpose.  A  power  plant  of  400.000  k.v.a.  capacity  would  be 
constructed  below  the  dam.  SluiccAvays  would  be  constructed  in  the 
dam  for  controlling  floods.  ()i>erated  in  accordance  with  the 
"Coordinated  Plan,"  the  Kennett  reservoir  would  reduce  the  maximum 
flood  flow  in  the  Sacramento  River  at  Red  Bluff  from  278,000  to  125,000 
second-feet. 

The  locations  of  the  Kennett  and  Iron  Canyon  reservoirs  are  shoAvn 
on  Plate  A,  "Three  Units  of  Comi>reheusive  Plan  on  Upper  Sacra- 
mento River."  The  third  unit  is  the  diversion  of  the  upper  section  of 
the  Trinity  River  into  the  Sacramento  Valley.  This  diversion  is  also 
a  unit  of  the  "Coordinated  Plan"  for  development  of  the  State's 
waters.  It  would  introduce  an  annual  supply  of  870,000  acre-feet  into 
the  Great  Central  Valley  that  would  otherwise  flow  through  a  moun- 
tainous country  into  the  Pacific  Ocean  unused  except  for  the  generation 
of  electric  power.    The  Trinity  diversion  is  fully  described  in  Bui.  No. 


*  Chap.  VI,  Bui.  No.  4,  "Water  Resources  of  California,"  a  report  to  the  Legis- 
lature of  1923  by  the  Division  of  Engineering  and  Irrigation,  State  Department  of 
Public  Works. 


PLATE    A 


f^wrsiCAL 

SCIENCES 
LIBRARY 


ToAvns 

Railroads 

Highway 

Canal  and  Penstock 

'— •""'^    Tunnel 

Power  House 

Resen'oir 

Dams 

U.S.G.S.  Gauging  Stations. 

Agricultnral  lands  flooded  bv 
Iron  Canyon  Reservoir 


THREE    UNITS 

or 

COMPREHENSIVE  PLAN 


UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER 

KENNETT    RESERVOIR 

TRINITY  RIVER  DIVERSION 

IRON   CANTON  RESERVOIR 


Scale   of  Miles 

2  4ft 

I  I  I 


U> 


50667 — pag-ei 


tlltjT 


I !^ 


^'^'. 


jlRON   CANYON   RESERVOIRl 


'  »    .*  J^  ,•* 

BUUY  HILL  SMELTER- 
_      _'  toff  tv 

*  „♦  ,    ^^  (^  uses  6AU6£{BAIR0 


^ 


S55  6AUG£     i^uALPOMJ 


IRON  CANYON, 


^:S&. 


ASRICUITURAL  LANDS. 


■^Red  Bluff 


KENNETT  RESERVOIR 


S  V  4  E   R  P 


r*^ 


^OUTHE^^  , 


PA 


<:'f^y 


Ch^V 


w 


Ji^/vi:H^ 


>.' 


I  i  ©ftf/J      5  GAUGE 


USSS.  iAUSC 


aw  J      S  GAUGE 


-  *^     ■?    ^   rt  ^^lirt  ^^     C  ^    .        ■*  .  t  KESWICK  DAM      Z 


#, 


J"V. 


4  ,      ''*l-~*    *     -^ 


^*    V 


>aI 


II/ 


POWER  HOUSE  N'  4   / 


•-"vj-    ^\ 


i^-lf 


V,,,^^. 


[POWER  MOUSE  N»  3 


■\ 


^  ^h. 


PLATE    A 


"^, 


'Teha 


f'l-.'rSICAL 
SCIENCES 
LIBRARY 


LEGEND 


To^vns 

Railroads 

Higlnvay 

•  anal  and  Penstock 


L^^"*^  Tunnel 

I      °       I  Power  House 

I^B^BI  Resen-oir 

I   0   (     i  Hams 

I       •      I  U.S.G.S. Gauging  Stations. 

jjjj^^^^  Agricultural  lands  flooded  bv 

luuiUKKR  JJ.JJJJ  Canyon  Reser\T)ir 


THREE    UNITS 

or 

i      COMPREHENSIAE  PLAN 


y  4 


v< 


IFAIRVIEW  I 
I  LEWISTDN  DIVERSK 


am4 


(/5  «  5  CAVSS 


<,■ 


»^* 


'rT^' 


lU- 


■-' ■»■—  '^^'" »'''^- .  ("'■?-*■     <<-* 


.i . 


w  :  f: 


J 


*"^- 


^ . 


^ 


ON 


UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER 


KENNETT    RESERVOIR 
TRINITY  RIVER  DIVERSION 
IRON  CANYON  RESERVOIR 

Scale   of  Miles 

110  2  4 6  t ID 


' — pages   14-15 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  15 

15.  "Tlie  Coordinated  Plan  (»f  Water  Development  in  the  Sacramento 
Valley." 

In  addition  to  the  fore<i:oi)io-  {)ossi]n]itios  of  developin<>:  water  on  the 
main  Saci-aiiiento  Kivci-.  there  are  several  lar<re  reservoir  sites  on  the 
Pit.  a  tributary  of  tlif  Sacramento  River,  and  quite  a  nmnber  of 
smaller  ones  on  the  lesser  tributaries,  particularly  to  the  upper  Pit. 
Some  of  these  will  be  useful  and  necessary  in  tlie  comjilete  develo])ment 
of  the  Saci'amento  River;  however,  the  volinnc  of  water  controlled  is 
much  too  small  to  uuikc  tliem  i)art  of  a  comprelioisive  scheme  of  develo])- 
ment  without  the  construction  of  a  larpe  reservoir  on  the  main  channel. 
These  smaller  reservoirs  will  be  useful  princii)ally  in  development 
of  the  260.000  acres  of  iri-i<i'able  land  in  tlio  basin  of  the  u]i))er  Pit 
River. 


•9'm 


W 


i5F<r-fl!C 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  15 

15,  "The  C'oorclinated  Plan  of  Water  Devclojjment  in  the  Sacramento 
Valley." 

In  addition  to  the  t'orej^oinji'  possibilities  of  developinj;'  watei-  on  the 
main  Sacramento  Rivei".  there  are  several  lai"<re  rcsei'voir  sites  on  the 
l*it,  a  tribntary  of  the  Saeramento  Kivei-,  and  (jnite  a  nnmber  of 
smaller  ones  on  the  lesser  tributaries,  particularly  to  the  upper  Pit. 
Some  of  these  will  be  useful  and  necessary  in  the  complete  development 
of  the  Saci-amento  Rivei-;  lunvevei",  the  volume  of  water  controlled  is 
much  too  small  to  make  them  part  of  a  com])rehensive  scheme  of  develop- 
ment without  the  construction  of  a  lai-<>e  i-eservoir  on  the  main  channel. 
These  smaller  reservoirs  will  be  useful  princii)ally  in  development 
of  the  26(),Q00  acres  of  irrigable  land  in  the  basin  of  the  U])i)er  Pit 
Kiver. 


16  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


CHAPTER  11. 


THE  MAIN  SACRAMENTO  RIVER  DRAINAGE  BASIN. 

Drainage  area  between   Red   Bluff  and  mouth   of   Feather   River. 

The  Sacramento  River,  upstream  from  its  coiifluenee  witli  the 
Feather,  lias  a  mountainous  di-ainage  area  of  12,100  square  miles.  Of 
this,  the  run-off  from  9258  square  miles  concentrates  in  the  main  chan- 
nel upstream  from  the  city  of  Red  Bluff.  The  run-off  from  the  other 
2842  square  miles  enters  the  channel  at  intervals  from  a  large  number 
of  smaller  streams  along  the  entire  length  of  168  miles  from  Red  Bluff 
to  the  mouth  of  the  Feather  River.  Although  these  streams  drain 
areas  extending  into  considerable  altitude  on  the  easterly  .side  of  the 
Coast  Range  and  the  westerly  sl()])e  of  the  JSierra,  their  descent  to 
plains  level  is  steep  and  direct  .so  that  the  run-off  of  each  is  compara- 
tively small  and  subject  to  large  variation.  Reservoir  sites  for  conserv- 
ing their  waters  are  few  and  generally  costly.  The  waters  of  these 
streams  can  be  used  most  advantageously  on  foothill  and  plains  areas 
adjacent  to  their  canyon  mouths.  Therefore,  these  streams  do  not  enter 
into  a  state-wide  plan  of  development. 

Drainage  area   upstream  from    Red   Bluff. 

The  9258  square  miles  of  the  Sacramento  watershed  whose  run-off 
concentrates  in  the  main  river  channel  up.stream  from  Red  Bluff  is  the 
part  of  great  importance  to  a  state-wide  plan  of  conservation.  Because 
the  run-off  from  this  area  concentrates  in  the  main  channel  before  the 
river  debouches  on  the  valley  floor,  i>hysical  conditions  are  favorable 
for  equalizing  these  waters  in  reservoirs  and  making  them  available 
for  use  in  large  quantities. 

The  drainage  basin  upstream  from  Red  Bluff  is  bounded  on  the  west 
by  the  Trinity  Mountains,  which  rise  to  an  elevation  of  9000  feet  on 
the  divide  separating  it  from  the  Pacific  slope  of  the  Coast  Range 
Mountains.  To  the  north  the  mountains  separating  this  basin  from 
the  Klamath  River  culminate  in  Mount  Shasta,  a  peak  having  a  crest 
14.162  feet  above  sea  level.  To  the  east  and  south  of  Mount  Shasta  is 
an  extensive  plateau  varying  from  four  to  five  thousand  feet  in  eleva- 
tion. This  plateau  extends  easterly  to  the  Warner  Mountains,  near 
the  State's  border,  that  rise  to  elevations  of  9000  feet  or  more. 

With  the  exception  of  the  plateau  areas  east  and  southeast  of  Mount 
Shasta,  practically  the  entire  area  is  mountainous.  The  agricultural 
lands  are  350,000  acres  scattered  in  parcels  along  the  upper  Pit  River 
and  490,000  acres  of  foothill  and  plains  lands  lying  in  the  vicinity  of 
the  cities  of  Redding  and  Red  Bluff".  In  the  latter  area  is  located  the 
Anderson-Cottonwood  Irrigation  District  of  31,400  acres,  in  which 
lies  nearly  all  of  the  land  now  intensively  farmed. 

Elevations  within  the  drainage  basin  vary  from  300  feet  near  Red 
Bluff  to  14,162  feet  at  the  top  of  Mount  Shasta.  One-half  of  the  area 
lies  between  the  elevations  of  2500  and  5000  feet  above  sea  level,  as 
shown  by  the  following  table : 


DEVELOPMENT  OF   I  TI'KH   SACKA  M  F.NTO   KMI'.R.  17 


ELEVATION  OF  DRAINAGE  AREA     MAIN  SACRAMENTO  RIVER  BASIN. 

Upstream  from  Red  Bluff. 

Dr.iiiiaBC  area 
I'.lrvatioii:  in  siuare  miles 

Below  2500  feet 2.100 

Between  2500  and  5000  feet 4,620 

Above  5000  feet 2..53S 

Total 9,258 

Precipitation  in  the  main  Sacramento  basin  varies  widely  between 
the  mountainous  area  north  of  Redding,  where  tlie  mean  seasonal 
rainfall  ranges  from  jIO  to  65  inches,  and  the  plateau  region  east  and 
southeasterly  fi'om  ^Mouiit  Shasta.  Here  the  mean  seasonal  rainfall 
approximates  15  inches. 

The  principal  streams  are  the  upper  Sacramento,  Pit  and  McCloud 
rivers.  These,  in  draining  the  absorbent  lava  formations  to  the  east 
and  south  of  ^Mount  Shasta,  are  distinguished  from  most  other  Cali- 
fornia streams  in  having  a  well-sustained  summer  flow.  The  mean 
flow  for  the  month  of  August  is  more  than  one-half  of  the  mean  rate 
throughout  the  entire  year,  whereas  the  state-wide  average  is  only 
one-quarter. 

Water    supply. 

Knowledge  of  the  run-off  from  this  area  is  gained  through  gagings 
that  have  been  made  at  several  points  along  the  main  cliannels  by  the 
United  States  Geological  Survey  in  cooperation  with  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia. The  station  that  has  been  maintained  through  the  greater 
period  of  time  is  near  Red  Blutf.  It  was  established  at  Jelly's  Ferry 
in  1895,  but  was  moved  eight  miles  downstream  to  the  lower  end  of 
Iron  Canyon  in  1902.  The  records  at  these  stations  furnish  data  over 
a  period  of  30  years,  one  of  the  longest  continuous  records  of  run-off 
in  California.  The  daily  discharge  at  this  and  the  several  other 
stations  in  this  basin  is  published*  in  the  Water  Supply  Papers  of  the 
United  States  Geological  Survey.  The  stations  for  whicii  data  are 
available,  their  tributary  drainage  area  and  the  period  of  record  are 
listed  in  the  following  table : 


*  The  run-off  computations  of  thi.s  volume  employed  data  of  the  last  several  years 
that  are  in  preparation  for  publication,  as  well  as  the  published  tables  of  previous 
years. 


2 — 50667 


18 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


UNITED  STATES  GEOLOGICAL  SURVEY  GAGING  STATIONS  IN  THE 
MAIN  SACRAMENTO  BASIN  ABOVE  RED  BLUFF. 


Stream 

Station 

Location 

Period  of  flischarge 
record 

Drainage 

area  in 

square 

miles 

Upjier  Sacrsmcnto 
River 

Castella 

Antler     

' ...  mile  Ix-low  Castle  Creek 

200  feet  above  Gregory  Creek 

Opposite  town  of  Kennett 

Oct.  1910-Scpt.  1922 

fNov.  1910-Dec.  19111 
\Apr.  1919-Sept.  1926/ 

Nov.  1925-Sept.  1926 

Apr.  1895-J\:ne  1902 

Jan.   1902-Sept.  1926 
Dec.  1903  Dec.  1995 
(Jan.    1904-Sept.  19081 
^Dee.  11'13-Aug.  1914^ 
I.Sept.  1921-Sept.  1926J 

Mar.  1921-Sept.  1926 
June  1922-AuK.  1924 
Nov.  1922-Sept.  1926 

Sept.  1910-Sept.  1926 
Nov.  1910-Sept.  1926 
Jan.   1904-Dec.  1905 

Jan.   1904-Dec.  1905 
Mav  1918-Sept.l926 
Mar.  1904-Dec.  1905 
Man.   1012-Aug.  1913\ 
IMay  1921-Oct.  1922/ 

Jan.   1922-Sept.  1922 
.\pr.  1921-Mav  1926 
Aug.  1911-Aug.  1913 
Aug.  1921-Sept.  1922 
Sept.  1910-July   1917 

July  1926-Sepl.  1926 

Mar.  1921-Sept.  1922 
f.\ug.  1911-Mar.  19141 
\Mar.  1921-Sept.  1922' 

Oct.   1921-Nov.  1922 

(Aug.  1911-.\ug.  19131 
\Mar.  1921-Sept.  1922/ 

Mar.  1921-Nov.  1922 
Oct.   1910-Aug.  1916 
Aug.  1911-Aue.  1913 
Oct.   19n-Aug.  1913 
Mar.  1902 -June  1908 
Dec.  1910-Sept.  1920 
Aug.  191 1-Sept.  1913 
Aug.  1911-Mar.  1914 
Aug.  1911-Jan.    1914 
Aug.  1911-Jan.   1914 
Aug.  1911-Mar.  1914 

Feb.  1919-Dec.  1919 

Oct.   1907-Dec.  1913 
Feb.  1919-Dce.  1919 

257 

rp|)er  Sacramento 
Kiver 

463 

Main  Sacramento 

6.603 

Main  Sacramento 
River 

Jelly's  Ferry 

Red  Bluff   

12  miles  above  Red  Blurf 

4  miles  pbove  Red  Bluff 

9  093 

Main  Sacramento 
River 

9  2.58 

I'it  River              .... 

.\bove  mouth  of  .\sh  Creek 

4  miles  above  Horse  Creek 

Below  mouth  of  Fall  River  at  Fall 
River  Milli 

1,460 

Pit  River         

3.086 

I'it  Kiver 

Fall  River  Mills 

Peek.s  Bridge 

Lindfsay  Flat 

Henderson  or  Big 
Bend                

4  1.52 

I'it  River 

At  Pecks  Bridge      

4  623 

I'it  River 

3  miles  below  Rock  Creek 

1  mile  above  Kosk  Creek 

4  858 

Pit  River         

4.922 

Pit  River     

4  miles  above  mouth  McCloud  River 

6  miles  above  West  Valley  Creek.  . . 

.\bove  junction  with  S(  nth  Fork  of 

Pit  River          

5,346 
91 

South  Fork  Pi*  River 

Ivv                .    .      • 

West  Valiev  Creek 

Likely         

-Vlturas             

140 

Pine  Creek           . . . 

6  miles  above  mouth     

31 

252 

Fall  River  Mills 

Glenburn       

600  feet  above  mouth 

1'2  miles  lielow  Tule  River  and  'o 

Fall  River     

600 

Dana 

Hawkins  Ranch 

Wilcox  Ranch 

Hat  Creek        

Bear  Creek      

2  miles  north  of  Dana 

6  miles  above  town  of  Hat  Creek. . . 
12  miles  southwest  of  Cassel 

I  mile  north  Hat  Creek  post  office.  . 

II  miles  SI  utheast  of  town  of  Hat 
Creek  and  5  miles  below  the  Big 
Springs 

Hat  Creek 

265 

Hat  Creek 

Hat  Creek       

326 

Hat  Creek 

Hat  Creek     

Carbon  

Hat  Creek 

3   miles  above   mouth  at  highway 

Cassel 

384 

Burncy  Creek 

Burncy  Creek 

Burney  Creek 

Burney  (above) 

Burney  (near) 

Burney  (below  falls) . 
Henderson      

300  feet  below'  junction  of  two  main 
forks,  7  miles  south  of  Burney  . . . 

3  miles  above  Goose  Creek  and  J^ 
mile  southwest  of  Burney 

'•2  mile  below  Burney  Falls  and  10 
miles  north  of  Burnev 

44 

92 
25 

Kosk  Creek 

3^  2  miles  above  mouth      

54 

Montgomery  Creek.  .  . 
Stpiaw  Creek     

-Montgomery  Creek. . 
Ydalpom 

Montgomery  Creek  post  office 

M  mile  southwest  of  Vdalpom 

14  miles  east  of  Gregory  pest  office.  . 

42 
112 

McCloud  River 

Gregorv  

608 

McCloud  River 

Baird 

669 

Clear  Creek 

Shasta 

Footbridge  at  Whisky  town 

5^  mile  above  mouth        

182 

{^ow  (^reek  

Millville      

185 

Clover  Creek 

Millvillc      

48 

Little  Cow  Creek 

Palo  Ccdro 

14  mile  east  of  Paio  Cedro 

148 

Bear  (Vcek 

Millville      

5  miles  above  mouth     

106 

North  Fork  Cotton- 
wood Creek 

Ono  (near) 

Ono  (at) 

.\t  Forester  dam  site,  4  miles  north- 

North  Fork  Cotton- 
wood Creek 

1  mile  above  Eagle  Creek 

52 

Moon  Cieek 

Ono 

4  miles  northwest  of  Ono  . 

The  total  run-ott'  from  the  main  Sacramento  basin  is  furnished  by 
the  records  of  the  K<^d  VAxiR  and  Jelly's  Ferry  gaging  stations.  The 
seasonal  run-off  obtained  from  these  records  Avas  jirojected  into  the 
previous  years  by  (•om])arison  of  rainfall  data.  V>y  this  method  values 
of  the  mean  .seasonal  run-off  were  estimated  for  the  twenty-four  years 
))rior  to  the  establishment  of  the  ITnited  States  Geological  Survey 
gaging  station.     This  work  is  described  in  Chapter  IV,  Bui.  No.  5, 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


19 


*'Fl()\v  ill  CalifoniiH  Streams."  Tlio  results  of  the  computations  are 
tabulated  on  p.  191  of  Bulletin  No.  -)  and  are  repeated  in  the  following? 
table  with  extensions  thnm-rh  the  year  li)2o.  The  fi«iures  enten-d  in 
the  eolumn  "Estimated  values  in  aere-feet"  arc  the  values  without 
stora«re  or  use  of  water  for  irrijjation  on  tiic  lands  upstream  from 
Ked  Hluff.  They  are  lar<>:cr  than  the  entries  in  the  column  "Values 
measured  at  <;a'rin<r  station  near  Ked  Bluff  in  acre-feet"  by  the  esti- 
mated net  amount  of  upstream  diversions  for  that  season. 

SEASONAL  RUN-OFF— MAIN  SACRAMENTO  DRAINAGE  BASIN. 
Drainage  Area,  9258  Square  Miles. 


\ 

Seasonal  run-off 

Season 
(Oct.  1  to  Sept.  30) 

Depth  on 

drainage 

area  in 

inches 

.\cre-fect 

per 

Equare  mile 

Estimated 
values  in 
acre-feet 

Values 

measured  at 

gagiuK  station 

near  Ked  Bluff 

in  acre-feet 

1871-72 

20.7 

9.7 
14.8 

8.9 
29.3 
•     20.0 
36.1 
17.0 
25.0 
31.2 
16.2 
13.5 
23.0 
13.1 
29.2 
13.5 
11.0 
21.5 
46.0 
13.1 
14.7 
25.2 
17.5 
25.0 
23.0 
21.0 
10.4 
12.1 
17.6 
18.3 
23  1 
20.1 
32.6 
21.9 
22  9 
28.1 
16.0 
29.6 
18.4 
20.4 
13.3 
14.3 
27.7 
25.5 
21.6 
14  5 
10.9 
15.7 

8.2 
23.1 
13  4 
10.7 

6.6 
16.3 

1,102 

516 

789 

474 

1,506 

1,066 

1,923 

905 

1,329 

1.663 

864 

720 

1,231 

698 

1,555 

720 

587 

1,145 

2,452 

698 

783 

1,339 

933 

1,329 

1,225 

1,122 

555 

646 

941 

974 

1.229 

1.074 

1,739 

1.164 

1,220 

1,500 

856 

1,574 

984 

1,092 

710 

761 

1,484 

1,359 

1.158 

774 

582 

840 

439 

1,234 

715 

572 

352 

867 

10,200,000 

4,780.000 

7,300,000 

4,390,000 

14,500,000 

9.870,000 

17,800,000 

8,380,000 

12,300,000 

15.400.000 

8,000,000 

6.670.000 

11.400.000 

6.460.000 

14.400,000 

6,670.000 

5.430.000 

10,600.000 

22.700.000 

6.460.000 

7,2.50,000 

12.400,000 

8,640.000 

12.300.000 

11,343,200 

10,391,400 

5,135,800 

5,977,400 

8,712,500 

9.020,900 

11.380.600 

9.941.800 

16.095.800 

10.775,200 

11.294.300 

13.883,700 

7,921,100 

14,568,700 

9.106,300 

10,108.300 

6,577,800 

7.049.100 

13.737.900 

12.,-)82.900 

10.719,600 

7,167,100 

5,388,.50O 

7,779,700 

4,068,800 

11.421,700 

6,617,800 

5,298.800 

3,261.800 

8,028,800 

1872-73 

1873-74   .  .    . 

1874-75 

1875-76 

1876-77      . . . 

1877-78 

1878-79 

1879-80 

1880-81   

1881-82 

1882-83 

188.3-84     

1884-85  

188,5-86 

1886-87  . 

1887-88    

1888-89 

1889-90      . . 

1890-91        

1891-92 

1892-93 

1893-94      

1894-95 

'3.347,000 

189.5-96 

1896-97 

1897-98  

11,170,400 

10,216,800 

4.959,300 

1898-99 

5,799,200 

1899-00 

8,532.500 

1900-01     

8.835,700 

1901-02 

11,197,100 

1902-03      

9,756,300 

1903-04    

15,908,900 

1904-05 

10,586,300 

190.5-06   

11.103,400 

1906-07  

13,691,300 

1907-08 

7,726,800 

1908-09 

14.372,800 

1909-10 

8,908,100 

1910-11 

9,908,800 

1911-12 

6,369,200 

1912-13 

6  831,600 

1913-14 

13.511.100 

1914-15 

12.347,400 

1915-16 

10,474.800 

1916-17 

6,913,600 

1917-18.. 

5.125.500 

1918-19 

7..507.600 

1919-20 

3.888,100 

1920-21 

11.131,800 

1921-22 

6.328.000 

1922-23 

5.009.000 

1923-24 

2,972,000 

1924-25   . .      . 

7,739,000 

Mean,  1871-1921,  50  years 

20.1 

1,072 

9.929,000 

Mean,  1871-1925,  54  years 

19.5 

1,039 

9.623.300 

'  Partial  year,  May  1  to  September  30. 


20 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


The  mean  seasonal  run-off  from  the  main  Sacramento  basin 
upstream  from  Red  Bluff  throuf^h  the  fifty-year  period  from  1871 
to  1921  is  9,929,000  acre-feel.  Including  the  four  years  following 
1921,  the  mean  is  9,623,000  acre-feet.  The  season  of  greatest  run-off 
was  1889-90  when  22,700,000  acre-feet  are  estimated  to  have  passed 
down  tlie  channel.  Tlie  season  of  least  run-off  was  1928-24  when 
the  yield  was  only  3,2()2,0()0  acre-feet.  The  great  variation 
between  these  extremes  is  indicative  of  the  need  of  a  reservoir  of 
great  capacity  to  hold  water  over  from  one  season  to  another  if  any 
large  fraction  of  the  mean  seasonal  run-off  is  to  be  made  available 
for  use. 

An  examination  of  the  detail  records  shows  an  even  greater  range 
in  the  extreme  values  of  the  mean  daily  flow  at  the  gaging  station 
during  the  period  of  record.  The  greatest  value  was  on  February  3, 
1909,  when  the  flow  averaged  254,000  second-feet,  the  greatest  flood 
of  record  on  this  stream.  The  highest  rate  on  this  day  was  278,000 
second-feet.  The  least  mean  daily  flow  occurred  in  August,  1924, 
with  a  value  of  2810  second-feet. 

As  disclosed  by  thirty  years  of  measurement,  the  seasonal  run-off 
is  distributed  through  the  months  of  the  year  as  shown  in  the  follow- 
ing table: 


DISTRIBUTION  OF  SEASONAL  RUN-OFF  BETWEEN  MONTHS  OF  YEAR 

MAIN  SACRAMENTO  DRAINAGE  BASIN. 

Upstream  from  Red  Bluff. 

1895-1925. 


•  ■■■■■—-■■            ■                    .  ■  .    -  ■           .    ■   -  ■ 

Month 

Average  run-off 
in  acre-feet 

Run-off  in 

per  cent  of 

mean 

seasonal 

January                                   

1,250,700 

1,488,700 

1,501,300 

1,118,300 

832,400 

.S34,500 

377,700 

322,300 

263,600 

328,700 

494,800 

665,600 

13.6 

16.2 

March                                                                             

16.4 

April                                                          

12,2 

M  ay                              .       .           

9.1 

5.8 

July                                                             

4.1 

August                                   

3.5 

2.9 

Octolw*r                                                                  

3.6 

Novpniber                      .           

5.4 

7.2 

Totals        

9,178,600 

100.0 

DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


21 


Based  on  the  stream  gaging  records  of  the  United  States  Geological 
Survey  stations  upstream  from  Red  Bluff,  the  fifty-year  mean  seasonal 
run-off  from  the  several  sections  of  the  main  Sacramento  drainage 
basin  is  estimated  as  follows : 


MEAN  SEASONAL  RUN-OFF  FROM  DIVISIONS  OF  MAIN  SACRAMENTO 

DRAINAGE  BASIN. 


Drainage 

area  in 

square  miles 

Mean  seasonal  run-off 

Division 

In  acre-feet 

In  acre-feet 

per  square 

mile  of 

drainage 

area 

Pit  River  Basin  (Pit  River  upstream  frcm  Bieber)     

3,086 

2,287 

675 

535 

2,675 

753,000 
3,483,000 
1,598,000 
1,448,000 
2,647.000 

244 

1,523 

2,368 

2,706 

990 

9,258 

9,929,000 

1,072 

The  foregoing  figures  represent  the  run-off  from  the  main  Sacra- 
mento drainage  basin  unimpaired  by  diversions  of  any  character. 
Through  the  irrigation  of  a  gross  area,  estimated  in  1920  to  be  about 
127,000  acres  in  the  Pit  River  basin,  with  some  along  Burney  and 
Hat  creeks,  there  are  now  net  diversions  approximating  a  couple 
of  hundred  thousand  acre-feet  in  the  upper  part  of  the  basin.  This 
use  is  growing  slowly  and  undoubtedly  will  expand  ultimately  to 
the  limits  of  available  land  and  water  supply.  There  are  about 
350,000  acres  of  agricultural  land  upon  which  water  could  be  placed 
to  advantage  if  an  economic  supply  could  be  obtained.  The  mean 
seasonal  run-off  tributary  to  this  land  is  753,000  acre-feet. 

It  is  estimated  that,  of  the  350,000  acres  of  available  agricultural 
land,  260,000  ultimately  may  be  brought  under  irrigation  through 
the  con.struction  of  canals  and  reservoirs  at  known  sites.  The 
remainder  lies  in  positions  or  at  elevations  too  high  to  be  easily 
watered  from  available  supplies.  The  260,000  acres  that  may  be 
irrigated  within  the  horizon  of  future  economics  will  require  about 
500.000  acre-feet  annually  or  seventy  per  cent  of  the  mean  seasonal 
run-off  from  this  part  of  the  Sacramento  drainage  basin. 

Run-oft'  from  this  area  in  any  quantity,  after  the  260,000  acres  are 
placed  under  irrigation,  would  reach  the  lower  part  of  the  basin  only 
in  seasons  of  abundant  run-off,  when  the  lower  basin  would  be  well 
supplied.  It  would  be  too  irregular  in  character  to  equalize  through 
storage  and  so  would  have  little  value  as  a  water  supply.  Believing 
that  the  best  interests  of  the  State  will  be  subserved  by  the  full  develop- 
ment of  the  agricultural  resources  of  the  Pit  River  basin,  tlie  entire 
run-off  from  tlie  tributary  drainage  area  has  been  allotted  to  this  use 
in  these  investigations.  All  estimates  of  water  supj^ly  available  for 
irrigation,  power  or  other  ])urpos('s  in  the  Sacramento  and  San 
Joacjuin  valleys  have  been  made  after  deducting  from  the  total  run- 
oft'  of  the  main  Saeramento  basin  the  entire  flow  at  the  Bieber  gaging 
station,  estimated  at  7.')3,00()  acre-feet  in  the  average  year.  The  reser- 
vation of  this  water  provides  for  the  future  development  of  all  the 
agricultural  land  upstream  from  the  Kennett  reservoir  in  a  position  to 
be  irrigated. 


22 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


,_^ 

«  — 

"2   « 

§& 

t^  h-      05  --  —         t^ 

CO 

t^  OO'*'                                  c^ 

*-         0     — 

0 

S.I 

m 

OO    oc^-^eccC'^ 

C4 

c« 

cooo«!0^eO'^<Moo 

CM 

CO  -^ji  0  0  -JD  —  « 

CM 

■^ 

—i        CO     ■ 

« 

CO  -^00  cs  c^ 

-^ 

^         iC  CM          ^ 

0 

o  «-e  Ci^ 

3  S 

-Mi 

do 

-|-o 

oo    oooooo 

o 

o 

ooooooooo 

^ 

0000^00 

0 

^ 

qe 

ceo    oooooo 

o 

o 

ooooooooo 

rt 

1^  O     0*0001^00 

o 

<M 

CO  M  t^^  CO  o_^  o_  o^  o_  o_ 

o_ 

?3 

li 

cc  CO     o  1*  oj  00  r^  -^ 

(M 

ii"." 

—  1--  0  -O  01  —  CO 

>> 

CC  so      iO  :C  -^  QO  r^  'M 

-^ 

Ol 

CO  C^  —  o6  OJ  -^  O  »f.-  00 

•-r 

UO  h-  CI  —  ^-  —  ^^ 

■^ 

O 

g-^ 

oo  t^    ®_»o  o  c^ 

«  —  c^)       o»       «r  -*  « 

CM 

■*-<»•          CO 

C-I 

3 

c  c: 

M               — 

— ' 

v 

3 

iM    "" 

'oo 

o 

o 

■ 

s 

3 

e 

o 

CJ    O)    U           0^ 

a> 

^  a>                         a> 

s 

V    0                             4? 

s 

X 

u 

Oj    &>    c;.           Oi 

o 

.  cj  a>                         u 

c< 

o;  OP                      a> 

9S 

C3 

l-l 

b.    k.    k.          L. 

u 

^  t.  u.                         fc^ 

Urn 

b.     k.                                    u 

a 

o 

o  u  u        c 

Cj 

0 

c;   u                        0 

□ 

"O 

a 

=   C   c        = 

g  1  =                         1 

c 

=:  c                      c 

1^ 

tM 

o 

o  c  o       o 

3 

p 

c  c                     0 

o 

o 

u- 

—      C'Uo—   c; —  __ 

y  tS  j;  —                s 

0  c  — —  ri:  V 

O      1       1    —  ~  —  —  ^      1 

00 

>.«=    ^  >.  >~.ic  >  —  x:  ^ 

> 

"cj  iT'  i^*^  tc  •-£:  a=  'x:  ^ 

i? 

>i  i^t^  3  tc  x:  > 

<x: 

'v 

tC 

o 

■>■£  ■>'>■>•£■> ^-5-^ 

> 

zj'>'>S-^-^-^-^'> 

*> 

■?>:5^-fc? 

•£ 

-0 

■5 

rt 

1-      clrt^i-rts^fc-S^ 

7i 

=^^r.   t-^^xHr'. 

fl 

rt    C3    «-    5.    1-    fc-    ;5 

k. 

'(/} 

b. 

t!       L.i-urli-CrtO 

t~. 

Ob-t-rJ-CCCfc. 

»-  fc-  rt  c  rt  sa  fc- 

rt 

rt 

55 

g 

oa  ooc;=:oKt^3; 

O 

c^oc;^=i  0:0:2^0 

C 

OOKKKKC 

;d 

U2 

e 

• — -^ 

-^ 

c 

o 

u  -M 

COOOO^COO 

OOOOOCOOOO 

c  c  =  —  0  oc  0 

•n 

>> 

■%4 

C: 

o^  o^  o_  o_  —  t^  ^^  c; 

CO 

GC  0  cr.  CO  0  01  0  to  CO 

C: 

0  ■M,  -»■  tr  =:_ r 

•-': 

0 

CI 

,^ 

^^ 

o*  r-*  cq  ■•£  -^      ^fi  — ' 

-X 

— '  QO'  0  r  «'  <m'         — '  0*  (M" 

0* 

^'  so       ».'•'  ri       Ti' 

■M 

0' 

u 

fr  i 

•TJ 

•<r  to  r-  Ci  cs 

iC 

CO  C^l  CO                       CJ  (M  C^ 

CM 

c<j—       —            — 

ta 

S  fc 

OC-l  oc 

a 

C3 

-H 

c-r 

o 

'o.S 

i- 

»o 

'C'l 

0»COO»CO:OC 

lo 

c-0  ;0  -0^  to  iC  «0  (^  t^  0 

tr* 

0  >c  M  -r  0  .*  .^ 

OC 

M 

0 

;^ 

S3    Gi 

•o 

c^i  tc  o  c.  ;o  r-  O  c- 

—  ooocooo-^caooo 

■*oc  —  0  — «■* 

03 

CO 

-f  -M  CO  ^  ^          ^ 

<M  CO  ^                        -^         CN 

ci 

C-l  C-)         ^ 

K 

■3.5 

« 

00 

Ol  O  O  CD-^ 

(N 

r^ 

^ootri                55o-^ 

iC 

r^ss 

co 

cc 

^      ^ 

Mil) 

to 

•^  03  CO  ■*»«  ^ 

O 

CO 

t^  i-i 

r* 

05 

Oi 

•-  3  = 

OJ 

tC  to  !D  — * 

»-•  0  CO                     eo  -^ 

■^ 

lais 

en 

co'so  :o' 

s  "1 

'i 

Q  ="■•  " 

sJS 

S^ 

ES-^==b:is-i^^ 

^ 

sr^bzisisis^^^ 

^ 

s:iSiias;aa 

^ 

;j 

&3 

cc 

lO  ic  »-t  --c  --C  r—  r^  r- 

o 

CM 

cc  CO  -^  re  r^  --J"  M 

CO      '^ 

CO 

.1  E 

'H 

C4"C 

irX 

^, 

y'.S^ZlZZZ^Zi^Z 

z 

2::?;:2;^::z:^::^.:?;:z 

^: 

zzzsrzzz 

^:  ^: 

:?: 

1^ 

CO  -M  CO  »C  -^  ^  — <  ^ 

o 

ot-tocicooooooo 

r^ 

1^  >o  Tf  Tj-  •»  <M  •^^ 

c- 

0 

0 

"^'o 

Q 

(M 

COCOCCOIC^COCCC^ 

M 

-^rcocococofo-^coco 

CO 

SC  CO  .^  ■*■<*■.<»•  ■»}• 

■^ 

CO 

■* 

•"* 

— , 

, *, 

, .^ 

, 

, ^^ 

Is 

(M 

»cr--cs'*j'XiCs^oo:oi^oooiCO-*»f5:or*»c»ooor-.C5t^!C-*<N»o»^oo^ 

22; 

^  ^  C<l  ^ -^  C^  CO  cs 

->(N  ^H  CO  ^                CO         ^ 

__iM           cccoeo 

^H 

coco 

— ' 

" — ■ 

— ' 

■ — *- — 

> 

« « 

c 

C^ 

.4<!  Jd 

?^ 

.  C9  ol 

"S. 

c 
> 

c 

r 
c 

4c 

■   -c 

^ 

■  a  c  0 

CD 

J" 

a;  3  P 

5 

a. 

c 
c 

0, 

E 

S 

18 

■  s 

e3 
> 

c 

^    t^    u,  ^    U.-Z 

'■1  ^  £•-  |1 

>■ 
II 

• 
•J 
'Z 

k 

•    > 

1    >• 
r 

3 

t- 

wti:coc::fc;sn: 

c 

:SxOO^:--c:-s: 

•^ 

-/.Ko^=;i.w 

^ 

^ 

^ 

s 

oo 

t- 

L. 

3 

1 

= 

l-B 

> 

.> 

1 

ii 

5 

2^ 

k 

k- 

^ 

II 

0    > 

J! 

1- 

1 

k 
k 

i  1 

a. 

t-     U     L. 

o  o 

;    1 

k.     L.     L 

-     L. 

_c  "~  _rr 

.^ 

>  >  >    -"cji;^ 

>    >    >    > 

'    t.    fc.    1- 

k 

^ 

5£S   :  £;fe  fe-^ 

'       W 

S  5  i5  "^ 

,  >  >  > 

> 

"  s 

t=- 

c 

c  o  c-«^^^  C 

_  _  _  ^  -^ 

-  -^ 

■  ,c  ,cr  ^ 

'■C 

2£Z^Z  g^ 

-           V 

_— 

c 

iiitlJl^ 

-          ^ 

III  Iww'i'il 

-z 

f     Is. 

-1 

£ 

2   2  2   c™*^™"^" 

^ 

C  w^ -S^"?  T 

\  J 

t 

& 

5 

\  d 

a 

-} 

15 

J 

:^ 

:? 

:i 

;  3 

i 

J  0  2 

i  ? 

r 

i 

i 

s 

i 

;s 

k 

i 

'k 

r- 

7 

a 

:! 

DEVELOPMENT  OF  TPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


23 


«.*  -r  ir?  O     O        11^ 
CI  «  i.t  — «      -*•         l^ 

^  ic  o  eo      00 
re  -*  cr  ^  Ti  go 

M           -^  —       If?           Tf« 

o    o        o      ooo    o    ocoo    o    o    o      o    ooo 

0_     0_           -0_       0  0_0_     O     OOtoO     0_     O     O        C_     O'OO 

^*    o'        oo*      r-'ir^'i--'   oo    c:'— ''Ore    c;*    i-    o"      ci"    e<i c-i S 

148.900 

153.000 

88.000 

570.000 

300.000 

o  c  o 


JL    1,    1,    '        i,  J.       '     i.  '      • 


cc  tc  en    tc    tn  --c:  >-.in    ^r:    u= 


^. 


|_Ut>         t-         U.     L^     7*.     ^         t.         t.         CS 

rtrsr:      n      rsni-rt      53      c3      u, 


^  ^  ^•SSr-S'^ir'^ir- 


o  o  c  o  o  o  oo  oo 
ei  CJ  -f  o  o  •■-.  o  o  o  o 
— ■  Tf  oc  «:    00       »c    o  »^       Ci  »c 


o      o  o  o    o 

O        O  O  "f^     o 


o    o    o      o    oooooooooo 

tf^     C3     c:j        o     oooooooooo 
CI      T^O— 'OceccOO'OtO 

re    -^'  o'  -o"  o'  oo' t-'  —<'  r--"  »ra  --jJ 
cc  —  ei 


?tooc«oooooo»cooo'^oo    ce    ooooOTf':c»frio^^O»oo 
^  .^      .— .^^      ,_,  —  _H  _^-_      ceoot^'^>o»c»C'rfift'M 


*— T 

oooico      :r>c<jooffO 
O        .-'  oo 


ce  e-i  — •  c-1    c^       ^-    ei 


<M       CO    CO    ^H.-».-.o^-oociCJCtt^;Dt^t— r-    >— •    CiC50or-oo»0'^-^c^fococ^ 


'z^z.^'z,  z    ^  1?:     2:    :?;  :^  ?::2::z::z::?::z::?:^:?;a;;2:^:z::z::2:  :?:  ?: :?: ^; Iz; :z; li?; iz;  12: 5: Iz: ^: :?: 

00000      O         »0      CO         **         ■^      CO      »-«•-'.— 'CO  C^l  —  C-IC-ICCCO  —  0000;      00      COtOcCt—  ir2t— C^^ICOt^-^iO 


C^wO    Cm 


c 


00       E 


03 

0 

m 

c 

tii 

0 

X 

w. 


.> 


*  2^  g_^ 

rt   -^   o  — 


Sk^    ^^    p^Q 


^2    M 

—       —      to 

<    o  < 


CO 

"  0-3  oj  c  M-?  I-   r? 


jii  ji     ~ 


cB     ^ 


Si 


U      O 


-CO       2 


tC    </3        C/3 


=3  r  o 


5  C3     C- 


,0  o    si  k: 


S    S 


;^    ?;wH 


o    2     2| 


CO 

CI   rJ  '^  /v-  -N^ 


o 


-3   -3 


'■  ^   f'   o   o 
^-^   .^   fc-   k. 


SX2  t-ls-^  >. 


Ti-y; 


24  WATER  RESOriU'ES  OE  (AEIFORNIA. 

Reservoir  sites. 

Prior  to  1921,  tlie  only  reservoir  site  in  the  Sacramento  River 
faiiynn  tliat  had  hoon  jGriven  serious  consideration  was  tliat  at  Iron 
Canyon  near  Ked  JUutl'.  Althou^'li  this  site  is  favorably  situated  to 
equalize  the  run-off  of  the  Sacramento  Iliver,  its  capacity  is  insuffi- 
cient for  the  purpose. 

Other  sites  exist  on  the  l*it  River  capable  of  bein^  developed  to 
larg:e  capacity  at  reasonable  costs  l)ut,  bein<?  located  on  a  tributary, 
have  only  a  small  fraction  of  the  run-off  of  the  main  Sacramento 
l)asin  passing:  their  dam  sites.  Tiic  \vai('r  that  does  reach  these  sites 
will  be  reduced  by  the  futui'c  <«'i-ow1h  in  demand  for  irrigation  water 
in  the  Pit  River  basin. 

The  1921-28  Water  Resources  Investigations  made  a  reconnoi-s- 
sance  survey  in  the  Sacramento  River  Canyon  from  Redding  to 
the  mouth  of  the  Pit  River,  a  distance  of  18  miles,  in  search  of  possi])le 
reservoir  sites  at  a  low  elevation  with  capacity  large  enough  to  equal- 
ize the  major  portion  of  the  run-off  from  the  tributary  drainage 
area.  Three  sites  Avere  found,  the  Keswick,  Coram  and  Kennett, 
named  from  the  towns  in  whose  proximity  the  dam  sites  are  located. 
Preliminary  cost  estimates  revealed  that  storage  could  be  constructed 
at  the  Kennett  site  with  less  cost  than  at  either  of  the  otlier  two,  botli 
of  which  overlap  the  more  favorable  Kennett  site.  The  Keswick 
site  can  be  utilized  in  conjunction  with  the  Kennett  reservoir,  as  an 
afterbay  to  reregulate  the  discharge  of  tlie  power  turbines  at  the 
Kennett  dam  for  irrigation  use.  The  discharge  from  tliese  turbines 
will  fluctuate  with  the  variation  in  power  demand  through  the  day 
and  will  need  smoothing  out  before  ])eing  turned  loose  in  tlie  river 
channel. 

The  foregoing  table  sets  forth  the  salient  information  collected 
concerning  reservoir  sites  in  the  main  Sacramento  River  drainage 
basin.  This  information  has  been  collected  from  various  sources. 
It  is  presented  without  relation  to  the  feasi])ility  of  tlie  individual 
sites.  Its  accuracy  is  not  known.  It  was  assendjled  and  used  only  for 
preliminary  considerations  in  formulating  the  "Coordinated  Plan" 
of  development. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF   UPPER  SACKA.MENTO  RIVER.  25 

CHAPTER  III. 


KENNETT   RESERVOIR   SITE. 

General. 

Tlie  Keiiiiott  roservoir  would  be  created  l)y  a  dam  across  tlie  canyon 
of  the  Sacramento  River  in  section  15,  to^vnsllip  3;}  north,  range  5 
Avest,  M.  D.  B.  and  M.,  about  5  miles  below  the  confluence  with  the 
Pit  and  13  miles  upstream  from  the  city  of  Redding.  A  dam  at 
this  point  would  back  the  river  up  the  upper  Sacramento,  the  Pit, 
tlu»  ]\rcCloud,  Scjuaw  Creek  and  numerous  canyons  and  gulches  so 
tluit.  although  tlie  reservoir  is  comparatively  narrow,  it  would  have 
a  large  capacity. 

The  site  is  naturally  favorable  for  a  high  dam.  INIassive  spurs 
converge  from  the  mountain  ranges  on  either  side  of  the  canyon  to 
form  a  dam  site  for  one  of  the  most  promising  reservoirs  in  the  entire 
State.  A  topographic  survey  of  the  dam  site,  made  in  1924,  discloses 
that  the  width  of  the  stream  channel  at  this  point  is  only  150  feet. 
The  canyon  walls  on  either  side  rise  on  an  average  of  33  feet  per 
100  feet  of  distance.  At  a  height  of  610  feet  above  low  w'ater  in  the 
river,  the  canyon  width  is  3600  feet  and  the  reservoir  capacity  is 
10.000,000   acre-feet. 

Were  it  not  that  the  main  line  of  the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad, 
several  miles  of  state  highway,  and  improvements  serving  adjacent 
mines,  traverse  the  reservoir  site,  it  Avould  yield  stored  water  at  a 
very  low  cost.  The  expense  of  flooding  improvements  constitutes  from 
31  to  64  per  cent  of  the  estimated  construction  cost  of  the  reservoir, 
according  to  the  height  of  dam  considered. 

Although  the  expense  of  relocating  the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad 
and  state  highway  is  large,  these  properties  could  function  just  as 
advantageously  in  other  locations.  There  is  no  agricultural  land 
Avithin  the  reservoir  site  and  for  the  most  part  the  rather  steep  slopes 
have  a  value  for  grazing  purposes  only. 

The  Kennett  dam  site  has  tributary  to  it  72  per  cent  of  the  drainage 
area  of  the  main  Sacramento  basin  upstream  from  Red  Bluflf.  The 
average  seasonal  run-off  is  1100  acre-feet  per  square  mile,  a  very 
excellent  yield.  Two  of  the  tributary  streams,  the  upper  Sacramento 
and  MeCloud,  that  drain  the  slopes  of  Mount  Shasta,  have  a  run-off 
in  relation  to  the  size  of  their  drainage  areas  that  is  exceeded  in  Cali- 
fornia only  by  a  few  of  the  smaller  streams  in  the  north  Pacific 
C'oast  region.  The  average  seasonal  run-off'  of  the  Sacramento 
River  above  the  confluence  with  the  Pit  is  equivalent  to  49  inches 
of  depth  on  its  drainage  area  and  that  of  the  McCloud  River  is 
equivalent  to  45  inches.  The  average  depth  of  .seasonal  run-off  on 
the  drainage  areas  of  these  two  streams  is  approximately  double 
that  of  any  of  the  other  tributaries  upstream  from  the  mouth  of  the 
Feather   River. 

Reservoir   capacity. 

A  preliminary  sur\ey  of  tlie  Kennett  reservoir  site  was  completed 
in  1924  to  the  1200-foot  contour,  wliich  is  615  feet  above  low  water  in 


26 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


the  fiver  at  the  dam  site.  The  r2()0-t'oot  contour  extends  33  miles 
iij)  the  main  channel  of  the  Sacramento  River  and  35  miles  up  the 
I'it.  Tiie  surface  area  of  a  reservoir  at  tliis  elevation  would  be 
r)4,400  acres,  wliich  is  unusually  small  for  its  large  storage  capacity. 
At  this  elevation  there  are  194  acre-feet  capacity  for  each  acre  of 
Avater  surface.  This  is  more  tlian  double  the  capacity  per  acre  of 
expo.sed  Avater  surface  of  many  reservoir  sites  in  California  and  there 
are  few  that  exceed  it.  This  relatively  small  area  exposed  to  evapora- 
tion makes  the  Kennett  reservoir  an  ideal  site  for  over-year  storage. 
A  working  map  was  plotted  fi-om  the  preliminary  surveys  on  a 
scale  of  1  inch  equals  lUOO  feet,  showing  contour  intervals  of  25  feet. 
The  area  and  capacity  of  the  reservoir  at  the  several  heights  of  dam 
were  planimetered  from  this  map  and  found  to  be  as  follows  (see 
Plate   C   for  Area-Capacity   Curves)  : 

CAPACITY  OF  KENNETT  RESERVOIR. 


Height  of  flam  in  feet 

Water  surface  elevation 

Area  of  water  surface 

Capacity  of  reservoir 

(-5  feet  freeboard) 

of  re-'ervoir  in  feet 

in  acres 

in  acre-feet 

100 

680 

900 

30,000 

120 

700 

1.260 

52.000 

140 

720 

1,800 

82.000 

IfiO 

740 

2.460 

124,000 

180 

760 

3,2.50 

181,(H)0 

200 

780 

4,200 

257,000 

220 

800 

5.490 

353,000 

240 

820 

6,590 

471,000 

260 

840 

7,780 

618,000 

280 

860 

9,060 

785,000 

300 

880 

10,500 

983,000 

320 

900 

12,370 

1,209,000 

340 

920 

14,150 

1,476,000 

360 

940 

16,110 

1,774.000 

380 

960 

18,230 

2,122,000 

400 

980 

20.500 

2,510,000 

420 

1.000 

23,030 

2,940,000 

440 

1,020 

2.1.810 

3.430,000 

460 

1,040 

28.700 

3,980,000 

480 

1,060 

31.650 

4,578.000 

500 

1.080 

34,700 

5,242,000 

520 

1,100 

37,820 

5,967,000 

540 

1,120 

40,920 

6.759,000 

.560 

1,140 

44.080 

7.600.000 

580 

1,160 

47.390 

8.516.000 

600 

1,180 

50.800 

9,.50 1.000 

620 

1.200 

54,430 

10,555.000 

Water  supply. 

Tile  drainage  area  upstream  from  the  Kennett  dam  site  is  6649 
sfpiare  miles,  2609  square  miles  less  than  that  tributary  to  the  Red 
Bluff  gaging  station  of  the  United  States  Geological  Survey.  Although 
a  gaging  station  is  noAv  established  near  the  town  of  Kennett  a  few 
miles  above  the  dam  site,  there  is  only  a  single  season's  measurement 
at  this  point.  All  Avater  supply  computations  for  the  Kennett  reservoir, 
therefore,  have  been  based  upon  the  records  at  the  Red  Bluff  gaging 
station. 

E.stimates  of  the  run-oft'  of  the  separate  tributaries  to  the  main 
Sacramento  basin  have  been  publi.shed  in  Bulletin  No.  5,  "Flow  in 
California  Streams,"  pages  179  to  191.  Applying  these  data,  it  is 
found  that  there  is  a  mean  seasonal  run-off  (50-year  mean)  of  2,536,- 
000  acre-feet  on  the  2609  square  miles  of  drainage  area  between  the 
Kennett   dam   site   and   tlie    Red   Bluff  gaging   .station.     This   is   dis- 


DEVELOPMENT  Of  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


27 


tributed   between   the  several   streams   as   set   forth    in   the    following 
table: 

RUN-OFF  FROM  AREA  BETWEEN  RED  BLUFF  GAGING  STATION  AND 

KENNETT  DAM  SITE. 


Stream 

Drainage 

area 
in  square 

miles 

Mean  seasonal 
run-off  in 
acre-feet 

(50-ycar  mean) 

Cottonwood  Creek 

937 
251 
100 
444 
137 
34 
80 
367 
113 
146 

913  000 

Clear  Creek : 

295  000 

Churn  Creek  Group 

83,000 

510  000 

Bear  Creek  Group 

104  000 

Ink's  ("reek > 

28,000 

Pavnes  Creek       

84  000 

Battle  Creek    

422  000 

Backbone  Creek  Group  (partial) 

97.000 

Direct  area   

0 

Totals 

2,609 

2  536  000 

The  mean  seasonal  run-off  (oO-year  mean)  at  Red  Bluff,  unim- 
paired by  upstream  diversions,  is  9,929,000  acre-feet.  Subtracting  the 
run-oft'  from  the  area  between  Red  Bluff  and  the  dam  site,  the  unim- 
]>aired  mean  seasonal  run-off'  (50-year  mean)  at  the  Kennett  dam 
site  is  found  to  be  7,393,000  acre-feet.  This  is  74  per  cent  of  the 
run-off  at  the  Red  Bluff'  gaging  station.  This  factor  was  used  in 
estimating  the  monthly  and  seasonal  run-oft'  values  at  Kennett  from 
the  corresponding  values  at  Red  Bluff  during  the  period  of  measure- 
ment. The  estimates  prior  to  1895,  the  year  of  establishing  the  Red 
Bluff  gaging  station,  were  made  by  subtracting  from  the  estimated 
values  at  Red  Bluff',  tabulated  on  page  19,  the  monthly  and  seasonal 
values  for  the  2609  square  miles  of  drainage  area  between  the  gaging 
station  and  the  Kennett  dam  site.  The  monthly  and  seasonal  values 
for  this  area  were  taken  from  the  estimates  for  the  partial  areas  in 
the  main  Sacramento  drainage  basin  published  in  Bulletin  Xo.  5.* 

The  entire  flow  so  estimated,  with  the  exception  of  the  water  diverted 
for  agricultural  use  in  the  Pit  River  basin,  would  be  available  for 
generating  power  at  the  Kennett  dam  site.  However,  due  to  prior 
rights  established  for  agricultural  use  downstream  from  the  Kennett 
reservoir  site,  only  part  of  this  water  is  available  for  new  agricultural 
development. 

In  1920  there  were  127,000  acres  under  irrigation  on  the  upper  Pit 
River.  This  area  is  expanding  from  year  to  year  and  will  eventually 
require  practically  the  entire  flow  of  the  stream.  In  order  to  allow  for 
the  full  development  of  the  agricultural  lands  upstream  from  the 
Kennett  reservoir  site,  the  entire  run-off'  of  tlie  Pit  River  basin,  as 
measured  at  the  Bieber  gaging  station  of  the  T'^nited  States  Geological 
Survey,  was  deducted  from  the  uninipaii-ed  run-off"  at  the  Kennett 
dam  site  to  obtain  the  water  available  in  th(^  future  for  botli  jiower  and 
irrigation  development. 

Tlie  seasonal  iMin-oft'  at  l>ieber  was  comi)uted  by  developing  a  run- 
oft'  curve  from  tiie  several  seasons'  record   of  gagings.   following  the 


*  Page.s  182  to  191,  Bui.  No.  5,  "r'^Iow  in  California  Stream.s, 
ing   and    Irrigation,    State    Department    of    Public    Works. 


Division  of  Engineer- 


28  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

methods  described  in  Chapter  IV,  Bulletin  No.  5,  "Flow  in  California 
Streams,"  and  taking  off  the  values  for  the  seasons  other  than  those 
tluring  wliieh  measurements  were  made  by  the  use  of  the  indices  of 
Avetness  for  Precipitation  Division  A  (p.  82,  Bui.  No.  5).  The  unim- 
paired mean  seasonal  run-off  (oO-j-ear  mean)  so  obtained  is  753,000 
acre-feet.  Therefore,  the  mean  seasonal  run-oft'  at  the  Kennett  dam  site 
available  for  fronerating  power  is  6,640,000  acre-feet. 

It  is  difficult  to  estimate  the  prior  riglits  to  water  passing  the  Kennett 
dam  site,  since  these  rights  have  never  been  adjudicated.  However, 
for  the  purpose  of  this  investigation,  it  was  assumed  that  the  entire 
flow  of  the  stream  up  to  oOOO  second-foet  would  be  required  between 
]\Iarch  1st  and  October  :!lst  in  order  to  satisfy  tlie  rights  of  users 
downstream  from  the  Kennett  dam  site.  One-fourth  of  this  was 
assumed  to  originate  below  the  dam.  On  this  basis,  had  these  rights 
been  in  existence  dui-iug  the  50-ycar  period,  1871  to  1921,  and  fulUy 
exercised,  they  would  liave  required  for  their  satisfaction  from  the 
water  passing  the  Kennett  dam  site  an  average  of  1,737,000  acre- 
feet  per  season.  Tlie  mean  seasonal  run-off  at  Kennett  available  for 
lU'w  agricultural  development  is,  therefore,  4.903,000  acre-feet. 

The  followinu'  table  sets  fortli  tliese  estimates  bv  seasons,  beginning  in 
1871 : 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  TAPPER  SACRAIMENTO  RIVER. 


29 


SEASONAL  RUN-OFF  AVAILABLE  FOR  USE  AT  KENNETT  DAM   SITE. 


1 

Kstiniated 

ic;ison:il  ruM-iilT 

11  acre-feet 

Season 
(Oct.  1  to  Sept.  30) 

Sacramento 
River  at 
Kennett 
dam  site 

(unimpaircti 
flow) 

I'it  Hiver 
at  Bicber 

.Vvailablc 

for  power 

development 

at  Kennett 

dam  site 

Prior  rights 

downstream 

from  Kennett 

dam  site 

.\vailable  at 
Kennett  dam 

site  frr  new- 
irrigation  use 

1871-72 

7.308.000 
4,341,000 
5,742,000 
3,996,000 
9,676,000 
8.186,000 

11,819,000 
6.324.000 
9.009,000 

11,103,000 
6,4.34.000 
5.373.000 
8,643,000 
5,623,000 

10,334,000 
5,711,000 
4,840,000 
7,800,000 

15,227,000 
5,433,000 
5,812,000 
8.866,000 
6,602,000 
8.575,000 
8,406.000 
7.701.000 
3,806.000 
4.430.000 
6.457.000 
6.685,000 
8,434,000 
7,368,000 

11,928,000 
7,985.000 
8.370.000 

10.289.000 
5.870.000 

10.796.000 
6.749.000 
7,491,000 
4.875,000 
5,224,000 

10.181,000 
9,325,000 
7,945,000 
5,311,000 
3,993,000 
5,765,000 
3,015,000 
8,464,000 
4,904,000 
3,927,000 
2,417,000 
5,950,000 

393,000 

330.000 

283,000 

189,000 

299,000 

2,753,000 

441,000 

393,000 

1,636,000 

2.360.000 

1.038.000 

31.=  .000 

1.825.000 

1.007.000 

1,967.000 

991.000 

535.000 

960,000 

1,904,000 

598,000 

503,000 

1.180,000 

566.000 

677.000 

960,000 

897,000 

2.52,000 

267,000 

566.000 

708.000 

456.000 

346,000 

1,367,000 

390,000 

844,000 

1,254,000 

279,000 

708,000 

346,000 

897,000 

235,000 

393,000 

748,000 

189,000 

472,000 

488,000 

173,000 

267,000 

189,000 

802,000 

524,000 

267,000 

255,000 

323,000 

6,915,000 
4,011,000 
5,459,000 
3,807,000 
9,377.000 
5,433.000 

11.378.000 
5.931.000 
7.373.000 
8.743.000 
5.396.000 
5.058.000 
6.818.000 
4,616.000 
8.367.000 
4.720.000 
4.305.000 
6.840.000 

13.323,000 
4,835,000 
5,309,000 
7,686,000 
6,036,000 
7,898,000 
7,44«,000 
6,804,000 
3,554,000 
4,163,000 
.5,891,000 
5,977,000 
7,978,000 
7,022.000 

10,561,000 
7,595,000 
7,.526,000 
9,035,000 
5,591,000 

10,088.000 
6.403.000 
6.594.000 
4.639.000 
4.831,000 
9,433,000 
9,136,000 
7,473,000 
4,823,000 
3,820,000 
5,498,000 
2.826,000 
7,662,000 
4,380,000 
3,660,000 
2,162,000 
5,627,000 

1,784,000 
1,496,000 
1,741,000 
1.447.000 
1,784,000 
1,784,000 
1.784,000 
1,773,000 
1,784,000 
1,784,000 
1,775,000 
1,692,000 
1,784.000 
1.6.55.000 
1.784.000 
1.676.000 
1.561.000 
1,784.000 
1.784,000 
1.668.000 
1,738,000 
1,784,000 
1,782.000 
1.784,000 
1,784,000 
1.784.000 
1.759.000 
1,750,000 
1,743.000 
1,738.000 
1.737.000 
1.717,000 
1.759.000 
1.769.000 
1.782.000 
1.784,000 
1,766.000 
1.784.000 
1,775,000 
1,784,000 
1,784,000 
1.7.V2,000 
1.763.000 
1.776,000 
1,774,000 
1.737,000 
1.669.000 
1,700.000 
1,595,000 
1,6,59,000 
1,633,000 
1,605,000 
1,268,000 
1,573,000 

.5.131,000 

1872-73 

2,515.000 

1873-74 

3.718.000 

1874-75 

2,360,000 

1875-76 

7,593,000 

1876-77 

3,649.000 

1877-78 \ 

9,591  011(1 

1878-79 

4  15S  IKH) 

1879-80 

5, ,589. 1)0(1 

1880-81 

6,9,59,000 

1881-82 

3,621,000 

1882-83 

3,366,000 

1883-84 

5.034,000 

1884-85 

2,901,000 

1885-86 

6,583,000 

1886-87     

3,044.000 

1887-88 

2.744.000 

1888-89 

5.056.000 

1889-90     

11.539.000 

1890-91 

3,167,000 

1891-92 

3.571,000 

1892-93 

5,902,000 

1893-94 

4,2.54,000 

1894-95 

6,114,000 

1895-96 

5,662,000 

5,020,000 

1897-98   

1.795,000 

2,407,000 

1899-00 

4.148.000 

1000-01    

4.239.000 

1901-02 

6.241.000 

5.305,000 

1903-04 

8,802,000 

5,826,000 

190.S-06 

5,744.000 

1906-07 

7,251,000 

1907-08   

3,825,000 

1908-09 

8,304,000 

1909-10 

4,628,000 

1910-11 

4,810,000 

1911-12 

2,855,000 

1912-13 

3,079,000 

1913-14 

7.670.000 

1914-15 

7,360,000 

1915-16 

5,699,000 

3,086,000 

1917-18    

2.151,000 

1918-19 

3.798.000 

1919-20 

1.231.000 

1920-21 

6.003.000 

1921-22 

2.747.000 

1922-23 

2.055.000 

1923-24 

894.000 

4,0W,000 

Mean  seasonal,   1871-1921,  50 
years 

7,393,000 

753,000 

6,040,000 

1,737,000 

4,903,000 

Mean  seasonal,   1871-1925,  54 
years 

7,164,000 

722,000 

6,442,000 

1,721,000 

4,721,000 

Water  yield  for  irrigation. 

Due  to  the  great  irregularity  in  the  values  of  seasonal  run-oflP  in 
successive  years,  storage  facilities  do  not  yield  the  same  equalized  tlow 
in  all  years  or  through  all  ])eriods  of  years.  The  foregoing  tabulation 
of  the  seasonal  run-otf  available  for  new  irrigation  use  shows  a  mini- 
mum seasonal  value  of  894,000  acre-feet  for  1923-24  and  a  maximum 


30  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

value  of  11,539,000  acre-feet  in  1889-90,  thirteen  times  larjjer  than  the 
niininuini. 

If  it  Avere  proposed  to  ]irovi(lo  stora<»o  only  for  holdinjr  winter  water 
over  for  the  foHowinji'  suniiner  use,  894,000  aei'e-feet  of  reservoir 
capacity  would  make  the  available  run-otf  of  the  minimum  year  usable 
for  new  irri<ration  sui)i)lies.  ISuch  a  reservoir  would  deliver  a  perfect 
sup])ly  tlirou<ili  all  seasons,  but  the  averaf>:e  yield  would  be  only  about 
20  ])in*  cent  of  tlie  mean  seasonal  run-off  available  for  new  irri<>:ation 
sup])lies.      Eijility  per  i-fnt  of  the  available  run-off'  would  be  wasted. 

If  it  were  desired  to  utilize  in  each  season  tlie  entire  available  run-off 
of  that  season,  the  reservoir  should  be  constructed  to  store  the  winter 
water  of  the  maximum  season  for  use  during:  the  following;  summer. 
This  would  require  a  cai)aeity  of  7,905,000  acre-feet,  about  nine  times 
lar<j:er  than  is  necessary  to  equalize  the  minimum  season.  If  such  a 
reservoir  had  been  constructed  in  1871  and  emptied  each  season,  it 
would  have  been  put  to  full  use  only  once  in  the  follo\vin<r  54  years. 
On  the  averap:e  only  50  per  cent  of  its  capacity  would  have  been  utilized, 
and  the  yield  in  successive  seasons  would  have  varied  1300  per  cent. 
Obviously,  it  Avould  be  useless  to  develop  such  an  irrefjular  supply,  for 
there  is  no  type  of  agriculture  that  could  survive  its  uncei'tainties.  To 
obtain  practical  results  in  the  use  of  much  more  than  the  minimum 
seasonal  run-oft',  it  is  necessary  to  store  water  over  from  one  season  to 
another.  The  extent  to  which  this  should  be  done  to  secure  a 
reasonably  uniform  draft  from  the  reservoir  requires  an  extended 
investigation. 

Analyses  of  the  yield  of  the  Kennett  reservoir,  operating  primarily 
for  irrigation,  Avere  made  for  five  heights  of  dam.  The  irrigation 
draft  Avas  determined  for  each  height  that  could  be  sustained  through 
the  54-year  period  of  run-off  estimates  with  a  deficiency  in  supply  not 
oftener,  on  an  aA'erage,  than  one  A'ear  in  ten.  These  analA'ses  AA'ere  made 
by  applying  the  assumed  rate  of  draft  to  the  54  seasons  of  run-off 
record  and  noting  the  ])rogressiA'e  results.  The  application  Avas  made 
month  by  month  through  the  entire  period,  starting  from  a  full  reser- 
voir at  the  close  of  the  year  1871,  and  using  the  estimated  monthly 
A'alues  of  unimpaired  run-off'  at  the  Kennett  dam  site  reduced  by  the 
ffoAv  of  the  Pit  River  at  Bieber.  The  analyses  Avere  made  both  AA'ith 
and  without  the  deduction  of  estimated  prior  rights  doAvnstream  from 
the  dam  site. 

The  irrigation  draft  from  the  reserA'oir  Avas  assumed  to  be  distributed 
through  the  season  in  accordance  Avitli  the  desirable  monthly  irriga- 
tion demand  determined  for  the  Sacramento  Valley  floor  in  previous 
studies.*      It  is  as  folloAvs : 


*  See  p.  G3,  Bui.  No.  6.  "Irrigation  Requiroment.';  f)f  California  Ijands,"  Division  of 
Engineering   and    Irrigation,    State    Department    of    Public   AVorks. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF   UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


31 


DISTRIBUTION  OF  IRRIGATION  DEMAND  THROUGH  THE  SEASON. 

Irrigatini  tiemand 
inper  cent  of  totiil 
Month:  sea.sonal  use 

Jainmry 0 

February 0 

March 1 

April 5 

May 16 

June 20 

July 22 

August 20 

September 12 

October >t. 4 

November "  0 

December 0 

Total ,\ 100 

The  water  in  storage  in  tlie  reservoir  was  reduced  month  by  month 
by  the  estimated  evaporation  from  the  water  surface.  This  was  taken 
at  3.5  feet  net  per  annum,  distributed  between  tlie  months  from  April 
to  December  as  in  the  followin<>-  table.  It  was  assumed  that  the  gain 
from  precipitation  on  the  reservoir  surface  from  December  to  April 
comi>ensates   the   loss   by   evaporation   during   these   months. 

ESTIMATED  NET  EVAPORATION  FROM  KENNETT  RESERVOIR. 


Month 


April 

May 

June 

July 

August. .. . 
September . 
October . . . 
November . 

Totals 


Depth  in 
feet 


0.32 
0.44 
0.52 
0.62 
0.58 
0.45 
0.34 
0.23 


3.50 


Per  cent  of 

seasonal 

total 


9.2 
12.6 
15.0 
17.8 
16.6 
12.7 
9.6 
6.5 


100.0 


These  computations  show  that  a  420-foot  dam  would  i)roduce  each 
season  2,838,000  acre-feet  of  new  water  equalized  for  irrigation  use, 
or  4,276,000  acre-feet,  including  prior-right  water  equalized  to  the 
irrigation  demand.  The  seasonal  yields  for  five  heights  of  dam  are 
shown  in  the  following  table,  together  with  the  average  and  maximum 
amounts  of  their  deficiencies.  It  may  be  noted  that  the  magnitude  of 
the  deficiencies  in  supply  increases  for  the  larger  reservoirs,  although 
the  frequency  wath  which  they  occur  averages  one  year  in  ten  for  all 
lieights  of  dam.     The  value  of  the  maximum  deficiency  ranges  from 

00  to  81  per  cent  for  the  three  highest  dams.  Such  deficiencies  would 
be  disastrous  if  they  occurred  very  often.  However,  reference  to  the 
tables  on  pages  37  and  38  shows  that  these  maximum  deficiencies 
occurred  in  1924,  a  year  of  33  per  cent  normal  run-off,  terminating  a 
series  of  three  years  that  averaged  51  per  cent  normal,  a  most  unusual 
occurrence.  (See  table,  page  29.)  The  deficiencies  in  the  year  1920 
were  also  rather  large,  but  the  maximum  deficiencies  during  the  48-year 
period  prior  to  1920  ranged   in   the  .several  computations  from  only 

1  to  22  per  cent. 

If,  in  order  to  avoid  the  large  deficiencies  here  shown  in  the  yieltls 
for  the  higher  dams,  a  moderate  limit  had  been  placed  on  the  maximum 
deficiency  in  supply  when  computing  the  yields  for  the  several  heights 


32 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


(>r  ilfiiii  coiiiiiai't'd,  tlic  lii^li  (1;iiiis  wduld  luivo  shown  almost  pcrlVet 
supply  tlirou^li  the  4S-y('ar  period  prioi-  1o  11)20  and  would  have 
had  only  moderate  deficiencies  in  l!t'_'4.  Such  sup|)lies  would  be 
unecoiiomically  ])erfect  and  suporior  to  the  yields  for  the  lower  dams 
which  would  have  had  a  hir;,;('i'  number  of  deficiencies  approaching  the 
modei-ate  limit  durin;^-  the  same  period.  Therefoi'e,  while  the  system 
adopted  for  making  the  comparisons,  of  com])uting  yields  on  the  basis 
of  equal  frequency  of  deficiencies,  does  not  produce  exactly  comparable 
results,  it  is  believed  that  they  are  more  nearly  com])arable  than  would 
have  been  obtained  had  a  moderate  limit  been  ])laced  on  the  allowable 
deficiency.  To  obtain  exactly  comparable  results  would  have  required 
placing  a  different  limit  on  the  maximum  deficiency  in  the  computa- 
tions of  yield  for  each  height  of  dam.  This  limit  Avould  have  been 
fixed  by  weighing  the  relative  consequence  of  the  magnitude  and  fre- 
quency of  the  several  deficiencies.  The  labor  involved  in  accom- 
plishing this  through  a  series  of  trial  computations  was  judged  to 
be  greater  than  was  warranted  by  the  small  difference  that  it  would 
have  made  in  the  results. 


SEASONAL  IRRIGATION  YIELD— KENNETT  RESERVOIR. 

Operating  primarily  for  irrigation. 

Deficiency  in  Supply  on  Average  of  One  Year  in  Ten. 


Without  deduction  for  prior 

•ights 

With  deduction  for  prior  rights 

Hcisrht  of  dam 
in  feet 
(5  feet 

Irrigation  yield 
in  acre-feet 
per  season 

Deficiency  in  per  cent 

Irrigation  yield 
in  aore-feet 
per  season 

Deficiency  in  per  cent 

freeboard) 

Average  of 
all  seasons 

Maximum 
season 

Average  of 
all  seasons 

Maximum 
season 

220 
320 
420 
520 
620 

1.468.000 
2.55n,000 
4,276,000 
5,486.000 
6,372,000 

0.6 
0.6 
1.6 
2.8 
3.2 

18 
16 
50 
61 
66 

466.000 
1.418.000 
2,838,000 
3,858,000 
4,686,000 

0.7 
0.9 
2.8 
3.6 
4.1 

26 
38 
69 
77 
81 

It  is  interesting  to  observe  the  part  of  the  seasonal  irrigation  yield 
that  is  supplied  from  stored  water.  This  varies  for  the  several  heights 
of  dam  and  from  season  to  sea.son  for  the  same  height.  For  the  420-foot 
dam  without  deduction  for  prior  rights  50  per  cent  of  the  average 
yield  is  water  taken  from  storage,  and  with  deduction  for  prior  rights 
71  per  cent  of  the  average  yield  is  taken  from  storage.  The  remainder 
is  supplied  direct  from  the  flow  in  the  stream.  The  average  use  of  the 
reservoir  space  each  season  is  74  and  68  per  cent,  respectively.  The 
following  table  presents  these  figures  for  all  heights  of  dam : 


DEVELOPMENT  OF   UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


33 


C 

u 

H 

C 

•^ 

Ih 

ca 

V 

>^ 

(U 

C 

o 

qc 

CM 

HH 

O 

0 

lU 

> 

bD 

a: 

U 

w 

> 

< 

05 

C 

o 

>> 

U 

ti 

z 

z 

UJ 

^ 

z 

>> 

h-H 

C 

e; 

(J 

< 

Q 

!^ 

J3 

4-1 

a 

Di 

c 

o 

o 

H 

4-1 

C/J 

rt 

h(i 

Z 

'w 

o 

H 

w 

Uh 

^ 

< 

>> 

Q 

C8 

s 

•  v^ 

u 

CU 

bfi 

C 

•*-4 

4.1 

C8 

u 

lU 

a 

O 

3—50667 


c  o  o  ^  o 

1 

oo  c 

"  c  o  c  c 

oc  o 

C  C3  C  C 

c 

Vo'^' 

•^  a>  -^  V 

k: 

^  -^  CO 

CO  CM  c:  O: 

CJ 

«ooo 

inoc  00 

B 

<: 

a 

B 

'B 

S 

O  OC3  '*  "^ 

^00  0-*-^ 

o  cr.  CB  CI  c^i 

1-  I--  o>  Ol  OI 

OC  CC  CO  c.  ^- 

OC  GC  CO  CT:  d 

>- 

-*^ 

O  CO  o  c 

O  C  o  c  c 

C  CO  o  o 

o  c  o  c  o 

o_oo  c  c 

c  o,occ 

i 

CC  m'  ^  Oi'  'f" 

CO*  C* '  CD  iC  c^' 

»o  O  ^-  1^  «c 

tc  c  r-  o  C'l 

O 

fCM  0>  C  OO 

c-:)  oi  in  CO  »c 

e 

3 

-t: 

-H*  CJ  ro  ■^' 

^  CM  CO'  -T^* 

73 

.i 

•i 

rt 

o 

S 

c 

(75 

5 

cc  ec  in  cc  CO 

CO  coco  00  00 

r^  1--  h-  r--  r- 

t  -  1  -  r^  CT:  cr. 

OO  OC  coco  QO 

QC  OC'  00  OC  00 

K"* 

L^ 

T3 

rt 

c: 

o 

tn 

CO 

l|-b' 

CO 

1-  fc  ^ 

c;  (M  in  ^  o 

tE 

00  r^  CO  1-  r- 

c-J   ?!   ?^ 

o 

C^  I^  CO  CCI  ^ 

iO  C  03  00  -f 

Q. 

CO  «r  N.  lO  CO 

_£ 

lO  1^  CO  -^  CO 

•-«  o 

o 

al 

lO 

c 
.2 

o 
c 

c 

C) 

I*-.  "-^ 

^ 

^o 

Cs 

^1 

3 

u 

3 

1^ 

GC 

S.£:3 

Q 

o  r^  in  cc  c:' 

CO  C^  00  -*"  Ol 

uir^  i 

c  — '  o  r^  oi 

o 

CI  C  C3  1.0  OO 

£§=*• 

c 

s 

CO  in  ic  o 

'rf-  !C  r*.  I^  1  - 

be 

1 

^ 

2 

1 

i 

< 

X 

^ 

c  c  o  c  c 

c  oo  c  c 

c  c  o  c  o 

C'  c  ^  c  c 

,\ 

c  c  o  o^  o 

c^  c  o  c^  o 

CJ 

--.'  iri  y^  — '  t^' 

I--'»o'od  GC  »c 

u 

-f  —  CO  r~  o 

Ci  IOCS  C  CC 

rf 

„  OO  *-  ^  Ci 

^ooocn  o 

C 

CJco'co' 

CMC^'CO' 

•rT 

"71  t^ 

C  CO  cc 

C  CO  c  c 

O  O  O  C  CD 

c  c  o  c  o 

S  c  i 

c  c  o  c  c 

o__  o  o  o^  c 

m   o   ^ 

ao  CitS  id  c-i 

O'  oo'  CO  oo*  CD 

«-^   5^ 

o  «o  h*  00  r^ 

CD  ^  CO  «J  00 

-*_^  lO  C»J  '^^  co_^ 

Tf  '^  00  00  CD 
^  CM  CO*  ^ 

M-     r- 

c .—  ^ 

c  c  o  c  c 

1=:  :=:  cs  tz:  :z 

>>i:'§J 

c  c  o  c  o 

o^  coco 

■^    C  '*.' 

^^tk 

c7  c:  Ci  r^  lO 

CO*  -:'  O  1-'  »c 

iO  C  ^  :i5»0 

lO  C  ^  CD  to 

Q.  c   w 

CO  (M  a>  o  lo 

CO  CM  0>  O:  tC- 

C3    tn    c3 

o  2: 

^'CMOO' 

.-I'CMiCO' 

■«^ 

»*-    Q>         il^ 

°J-£-H 

^.B£° 

o  o  ^  c  o 

O  C  O  o  o 

CN  C^l  CM  CI  Ol 

-M  OlCM  OJ  Ol 

cs  CO  ^  tc  ys 

Ol  CO  ^  lO  CD 

T 

3       *<- 

co'co  c^ 

CM  01  c<l 

o'cc 

CM  Ol  CI 

CI  O:  CI 


oooo  ^  CO 
OOOO  O  CI 

OO  OC  C-.  c^ 


lO  »-0  iC  00 

,,  r-  t^  ^ 

oo  00  oo  Cl 


Ci    C3    C3    C3 

a  £=  S  E 


X 

>< 

p 

X 

d 

CJ 

B  S  B  a 

bf 

6C  M 

Ml 

c; 

c 

a 

C 

g 

> 

> 

C 

hC  bC  bC  tc 
m  to  v)  m 
k-    fc-    C    L. 

e3  c3  cJ  rJ 
4)  GJ  C  f 
>.>>>.>. 

k'     fc.     U.     I_ 

at  c  o  a> 


cccc 


34  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

The  foregoing  computations  of  seasonal  irrigation  yield  of  the 
Kennett  reservoir  are  based  on  shortages  occurring  on  an  average  of 
one  year  in  ten.  Past  experience  has  demonstrated  that  farming 
enteri)rises^  particularly  in  the  develojimental  stage,  can  better  survive 
occasional  deficiencies  in  their  water  supply  than  to  aecei)t  the  burden 
of  paying  for  deliveries  perfect  in  the  regularity  of  their  full  volume.* 
Extended  studies  were  made  to  ascertain  the  variance  in  volume  of 
yield  with  different  average  frequencies  of  deficiency. 

The  irrigation  yield  from  the  Kennett  reservoir,  when  operating 
primarily  for  this  purpose,  would  increase  as  much  as  60  per  cent 
over  a  perfect  supply  according  to  the  amount  and  frequency  of 
deficiencies  that  might  be  endured.  From  these  studies  it  was  con- 
cluded that,  for  practical  purposes,  an  irrigation  supply  having 
deficiencies  on  an  average  not  oftener  than  one  year  in  ten  would  be 
the  economic  type  of  supply  to  provide  during  the  developmental  period 
in  northern  California.  In  later  years,  after  the  heavy  initial  construc- 
tion costs  have  been  paid  off,  greater  regularity  in  supply  could  be 
obtained  if  desired  by  enlarging  the  reservoir.  The  selection  of  a 
draft  with  deficiencies  in  supply  on  an  average  of  one  year  in  ten 
increases  the  area  of  service  from  a  reservoir  of  given  size  from  22 
to  43  per  cent  over  that  for  a  draft  that  would  carry  through  the  driest 
year  without  a  shortage. 

The  following  table  sets  forth  the  area  of  service  (net)  from  a  420- 
foot  dam  for  several  average  frequencies  of  deficiency  in  supply 
based  upon  a  net  consumptive  use  of  2.5  acre-feet  per  acre.  It  may 
be  observed  that,  if  a  deficiency  in  supply  is  sustained  on  an  average  of 
one  year  in  ten,  34  per  cent  greater  area  may  be  served  with  an  equal- 
ized irrigation  supply  inclusive  of  prior  rights  and  43  per  cent  greater 
area  exclusive  of  prior  rights,  and  that  the  average  deficiency  in 
seasonal  supply  would  be  small,  although  deficiencies  as  large  as  50 
and  69  per  cent,  respectively,  would  have  to  be  endured  at  long  inter- 
A'als.  The  magnitudes  of  all  the  deficiencies,  had  the  reservoir  been  in 
operation  from  1871  to  1925,  are  tabulated  in  the  tables  on  pages  37  and 
38.  Reference  to  these  tables  shows  that  the  largest  deficiency  during 
the  49-year  period,  1871-1920,  while  operating  with  a  deficiency  in  yield 
on  the  average  of  one  year  in  ten.  was  4  per  cent  without  deduction 
for  prior  rights  and  15  per  cent  with  deduction  for  prior  rights.  The 
years  1920  and  1924  brought  deficiencies  in  yield  of  27  and  50  per 
cent,  respectively,  without  deduction  for  prior  rights,  and  41  and  69  per 
cent,  respectively,  with  deduction  for  prior  rights.  They  are  the  only 
serious  shortages  during  the  entire  54  years  of  test.  Although  these 
deficiencies  are  large  and  would  seriously  impair  agricultural  produc- 
tion during  the  season  in  Avhicli  they  occur,  they  would  not  inflict 
l)ermanent  damage.  An  inspection  of  the  table  of  seasonal  run-off 
available  for  use  at  the  Kennett  dam  site  on  page  29  is  convincing 
that  it  Avould  be  uneconomical  at  this  time  to  construct  over-year 
storage  in  order  to  obtain  a  full  supply  in  such  seasons.  The  shortages 
in  supply,  although  largo,  must  be  endured  in  this  type  of  season 
because  the  records  disclose  that  they  occur  too  infrequently,  only 
twice  in  the  54  years,  to  warrant  large  expenditures  for  reservoir  space 


*  See  p.  73,  Bui.  No.  6.  "Irrigation  ReQuirements  of  California  Lands,"  Division  of 
Engineering    and    Irrigation,    State    Department    of    Public    Works. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


35 


that  would  be  so  seldom  used.  The  cost  of  additioual  storage  space 
in  the  Kenuett  reservoir  that  would  be  sufficiently  laro-e  to  hold  over 
flood  waters  from  previous  years  of  j)]enteous  run-off  in  amounts  that 
would  furnish  a  perfect  sui)i)ly  in  the  lean  years  of  1920  and  1924, 
under  present  conditions,  would  exceed  the  benefit  accruing  to  agricul- 
tural production  in  having  the  full  irrigation  supply  during  these 
seasons. 

AREA  OF  IRRIGATION  SERVICE  FROM  KENNETT  RESERVOIR. 

420-Foot  Dam. 
With  Varying  Average  Frequency  of  Deficiency  in  Supply. 


Without  deduction  for  prior  rights 

With  deduction  for  prior  rights 

Average 

freq\iency  of 

deficiency  in 

supply  in  period 

Area  in 
acres 
(net) 

Area  in 
per  cent 
of  service 
with  no 
deficiency 
in  supply 

Deficiency  in  seasonal 
supply,  in  per  cent 

Area  in 
acres 
(net) 

Area  in 
per  cent 
r.i  service 
with  no 
deficiency 
in  supply 

Deficiency  in  seasonal 
supply,  in  per  cent 

1871-1925 

Average  of 
all  years 

Ma.ximum 
year 

Average  of 
all  years 

Maximum 

year 

No  deficiency 

1  year  in  50  years  . 
1  year  in  25  years  . 
1  year  in  10  years 
1  year  in    5  years 

1,278.000 
1.463.000 
1,672.000 
1.710.000 
1,828,000 

100 
114 
131 
134 
143 

0 
0.4 
1.3 
1.6 
3.1 

0 
24 
49 
50 
53 

794,000 

891,000 

1,027,000 

1,135,000 

1,289,000 

100 
112 
129 
143 
162 

0 
0.4 
1.4 
2.8 
5.3 

0 
20 
52 
69 
72 

The  data  concerning  the  varying  yield  for  different  frequencies  of 
deficient  supply  are  so  interesting  that  they  are  given  complete  in  the 
following  tables.  First,  the  irrigation  yield  in  acre-feet  per  season  is 
given  for  several  average  frequencies  of  deficiency  and  heights  of  dam, 
both  with  and  without  deductions  for  estimated  prior  rights.  The 
second  table  gives  the  net  area  in  acres  that  could  be  irrigated  under 
the  same  conditions  of  supply.  These  areas  were  computed  on  a  duty 
of  2.5  acre-feet  per  acre  per  season,  which  includes  the  full  use  of 
return  waters.  Actual  deliveries  over  much  of  the  area  would  exceed 
this  amount.  The  third  table  expresses  the  irrigation  yield  for  the 
several  average  frequencies  of  deficiency  in  per  cent  of  that  having  a 
deficiency  on  an  average  of  one  year  in  ten.  The  fourth  and  fifth  tables 
set  forth  the  amount  of  the  deficiencies  under  the  several  different  con- 
ditions and  the  years  in  which  they  would  have  occurred.  In  reviewing 
the  latter  tables,  it  will  be  noticed  that  the  amounts  of  the  deficiencies 
for  a  specific  frequency  vary  considerably  in  the  several  comi)utations 
for  different  heights  of  dam.  In  general,  they  tend  to  increase  with  the 
size  of  the  reservoir.  Limitations  on  the  amounts  of  the  deficiencies 
as  well  as  their  frequency  should  be  included  for  a  complete  definition 
of  the  quality  of  a  supply.  The  comparison  of  supplies  in  these  tables 
is  based  only  upon  equal  average  frequency  of  deficiencies  without 
regard  to  their  amount  because  of  the  dii^culty  of  including  two 
criteria  in  the  computations.  A  few  minor  inconsistencies  in  the  tables 
may  be  explained  by  this  omission. 


36 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


IRRIGATION  YIELD— KENNETT  RESERVOIR. 

ACRE-FEET  PER  SEASON. 

Operating  Primarily  for  Irrigation. 


.Average  frequency  of  deficiency 
in  supply  during  period  1871-1925 


No  deficiency .... 
1  yenr  in  50  years 
1  year  in  25  years 
1  year  in  10  years 
I  year  in    5  years 

No  deficiency.  . . . 
1  year  in  50  years 
1  year  in  25  years 
1  year  in  10  years 
1  year  in    5  years 


220 


1,100,000 
1,322,000 
1,374.000 
1,468,000 
1,598,000 


343.000 
431,000 
443,000 
466,000 
497,000 


Height  of  dam  in  feet  (5  feet  freeboard) 


320 


420 


520 


Without  Deduction  for  Prior  Rights. 


2,102,000 
2.404.000 
2,441,000 
2,559.000 
2,723.000 


3.196.000 
3.658,000 
4,181,000 
4,278,000 
4.570,000 


4,411.000 
4.915,000 
5,1.54,000 
5,486.000 
5.878,000 


With  Deduction  for  Prior  Rights. 


1.11,5.000 
1.329,000 
1,381,000 
1,418,000 
1,513,000 


1.986,000 
2.227,000 
2,567,000 
2,838,000 
3.222,000 


2, 962, 000 
3,2>t8.()O0 
3,.52 1,000 
3,858.000 
4,191,000 


620 


5,142,000 
5,.55 1.000 
5,574,000 
6,372,000 
6,615,000 


3,562,000 
3,927,000 
3,996,000 
4,686,000 
4,994,000 


AREA  OF  IRRIGATION  SERVICE— KENNETT  RESERVOIR. 

IN  ACRES. 
Operating  Primarily  for  Irrigation. 


Average  frequency  of  deficiency 
in  supply  during  period  1871-1925 


No  deficiency .  . . . 
1  year  in  50  years 
1  year  in  25  years 
1  year  in  10  years 
1  year  in    5  years 

No  deficiency .  . .  . 
1  year  in  50  years 
1  yesr  in  25  years 
1  year  in  10  years 
1  year  in    5  years 


220 


466,000 
529,000 
550,000 
587,000 
639,000 


137,000 
172,000 
177.000 
186.000 
190,000 


Height  of  dam  in  feet  (5  feet  freeboard) 


320 


420 


520 


Without  Deduction  for  Prior  Rights. 


841,000 

062,000 

076,000 

1.024.000 

1.089,000 


1.278,000 

i.-ses.ooo 

1,672.000 
1,710,000 
1,828,000 


1.764,000 
1 ,966,000 
2,062.000 
2.194,000 
2.,351,000 


With  Deduction  for  Prior  Rights. 


446,000 
532,000 
552.000 
567,000 
605,000 


794.000 

891.000 

1,027,000 

1.135,000 

1,289,000 


1,185,000 
1,310,000 
1.408,000 
1,543,000 
1,676,000 


620 


2,057.000 
2.220,000 
2,230,000 
2,519,000 
2,640,000 


1.425,000 
1.571,000 
1,598,000 
1.874,000 
1,998,000 


IRRIGATION  YIELD  -KENNETT  RESERVOIR— IN  PER  CENT  OF  YIELD 
WITH  DEFICIENCY   IN  SUPPLY  ON   AVERAGE  OF  ONE  YEAR  IN  TEN. 

Operating  Primarily  for  Irrigation. 


Average  frequency  of  deficiency 

Height  of  dam  in  feet  (5  feet  freeboard) 

in  supply  during  period  1871-1925 

220 

320 

420 

520 

620 

No  deficiency   

79.4 

90.1 

93.6 

100.0 

108.9 

73.6 

92.5 

95.1 

100.0 

107.0 

Without  : 

82.1 

93.9 

95.3 

100  0 

106  3 

With  D( 

78.7 

93.8 

97.4 

100.0 

106.7 

leduction  for  Pri 
74.7 

or  Rights. 

80.4 

80.7 

85  6 

97.8 

100  0 

89.6 

94.0 

100.0 

87.1 

1  year  in  25  years   

87.5 

100,0 

1  year  in    5  years 

106  9 

107.2 

103  8 

No  deficiency ... 

1  year  in  50  years         

duction  for  Prio 

70  0 

78.5 

90  5 

100  0 

113.6 

r  Rights. 

76.8 

85.5 

91.3 

100.0 

108.6 

76  0 
83.8 

85.3 

1  year  in  10  years         

100.0 

1  year  in    5  years 

106.6 

DEVELOPMENT  OP  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


37 


KENNETT  RESERVOIR. 

AMOUNT  AND  YEAR  OF  DEFICIENCY  IN  SEASONAL  IRRIGATION  YIELD 

DURING  PERIOD  1871-1925. 

Without  Deduction  for  Prior  Rights. 

Operating  Primarily  for  Irrigation,  with  Yields  Shown  in  Tables  on  Page  36. 


Frequency  of  deficiency  in  supply 

Height  of 
liam  in  feet 

1  year  in  50  years 

1  year 

n  25  years 

1  year 

n  10  years 

1  year 

in  5  years 

(5  feet 
freelward) 

Deficiency 

Deficiency 

Deficioncv 

Deficiency 

\ear 

in  per  cent  of 

■iear 

in  per  cent  of 

\ear 

in  per  cent  of 

"icar 

in  per  cent  of 

\ 

full  supply 

full  supply 

full  supply 

full  supply 

220 

1924 

11 

1875 

3 

1888 

1 

1887 

1 

1924 

14 

1920 
1P73 
1875 
1924 

1 

5 

7 

18 

1918 
1885 
1925 
1923 
1920 
1888 
1873 
1875 
.      1924 

2 
2 
4 
6 
7 
7 

10 
13 
24 

Average  .... 

11 

8.6 

6  4 

7  6 

320 

1924 

11 

1875 

1 

1923 

2 

1887 

1 

1924 

12 

1873 
1920 
1875 
1924 

3 

4 

5 

16 

1925 
1885 
1918 
1888 
1923 
1873 
1920 
1875 
1924 

2 
2 

.5 
5 
7 
8 
9 

10 
21 

.Average  .... 

11 

6.5 

6 

7 

A?0 

1924 

24 

1920 

23 

1898 

2 

1922 

1 

1924 

49 

1899 
1923 
1920 
1924 

a 

4 

27 

50 

1873 
1888 
1899 
1918 
1875 
1898 
1923 
1920 
1924 

4 
6 
10 
10 
12 
14 
20 
37 
53 

Average  

24 

36 

17.4 

16  7 

520 

1924 

42 

1920 

22 

1875 

10 

1900 

1 

1924 

58 

1899 
1923 
1920 
1924 

14 
18 
49 
61 

1898 
1925 
1919 
1918 
1899 
1875 
1923 
1920 
1924 

3 
5 
8 
18 
29 
34 
36 
52 
64 

Average 

42 

40 

30.4 

25 

620 

1924 

61 

1923 

3 

1925 

11 

1899 

5 

1924 

65 

1922 
1920 
1923 
1924 

13 
42 
43 
66 

1875 
1900 
1901 
1888 
1925 
1922 
1923 
1920 
1924 

8 
12 
12 
14 
16 
20 
45 
58 
68 

.\verage 

61 

34 

35 

25.8 

38 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


KENNETT  RESERVOIR. 
AMOUNT  AND  YEAR  OF  DEFICIENCY  IN  SEASONAL  IRRIGATION  YIELD 

DURING  PERIOD  1871-1925. 

With  Deduction  for  Prior  Rights. 
Operating  Primarily  for  Irrigation,  with  Yields  Shown  in  Tables  on  Page  36. 


Frequency  of  deBciency  in  supply 

Hfiaht  of 

1  year 

n  50  years 

1  year  in  25  years 

1  year  in  10  years 

1  year  in  5  years 

dam  in  feet 

(5  feet 

freeboard) 

Deficiencv 

Deficiency 

Deficiency 

Deficiencv 

\ear 

in  per  cent  of 

Year 

in  per  cent  of 

Year 

in  per  cent  of 

Year 

in  per  cent  cf 

full  supply 

full  supply 

full  supply 

full  supply 

220 

1924 

20 

1920 

3 

1901 

1 

1888 

2 

1024 

22 

1923 
1873 
1920 
1924 

1 
4 

7 
26 

1887 
1918 
1919 
1875 
1901 
1923 
1873 
1920 
1924 

2 
3 
3 
4 
5 
6 
8 
12 
31 

Average 

20 

12.5 

7.8 

7  6 

320 

1924 

30 

1920 

4 

1873 

1 

1899 

1 

1924 

36 

1918 
1923 
1920 
1924 

1 

2 

8 
38 

1887 
1901 
1875 
1898 
1873 
1918 
1923 
1920 
1924 

1 
2 
4 
6 
6 
7 
8 
19 
42 

Average 

30 

20 

10 

9  6 

420 

1924 

20 

1920 

?5 

1898 

12 

1873 

2 

1924 

52 

1923 
1899 
1920 
1924 

14 
15 
41 
69 

1922 
1888 
1875 
1918 
1899 
1898 
1923 
1920 
1924 

9 
11 
16 
23 
25 
33 
37 
59 
72 

Average 

20 

38.5 

30.2 

28  7 

520 

1924 

54 

1920 

30 

1875 

1 

1900 

1 

1924 

75 

1899 
1923 
1920 
1924 

22 
25 
68 

77 

1901 
1925 
1919 
1918 
1875 
1899 
1923 
1920 
1924 

2 
5 
11 
19 
30 
42 
47 
71 
79 

Average 

54 

52.5 

38.6 

30  7 

620 

1924 

77 

1923 

13 

1925 

15 

1919 

1 

1924 

78 

1922 
1920 
1923 
1924 

16 
50 
57 
81 

1900 
1901 
1925 
1922 
1888 
1899 
1923 
1920 
1924 

17 
18 
20 
27 
33 
35 
59 
76 
82 

Average  

77 

45.5 

43.8 

36  8 

DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


39 


Power    yield. 

Electric  powor  may  be  <ienera1e(l  at  tlie  Kcimett  reservoir  by  con- 
structino;  a  power  })lant  below  the  dam,  through  which  would  pas.s, 
under  reservoir  pressure,  all  or  part  of  the  water  released.  The 
amount  and  character  of  power  tliat  could  be  so  generated  ^vill  depend 
upon  the  mjumer  in  which  water  is  released  from  storag-e.  TUtimately, 
the  State's  interests  will  be  served  best  by  releasing  this  water  in  con- 
junction with  that  from  tlie  Iron  Canyon  reservoir,  in  accord  with  the 
demand  for  irrigation  use  modified  to  fit  the  necessities  of  navigation 
and  salt  water  control  in  the  Sacramento  River. 

The  demand  for  irrigation  Avater  varies  in  vohniie  from  month  to 
month  with  the  necessity  of  irrigating  crops,  but  follows  nearly  the 
same  fluctuations  each  season.  The  table  on  page  31  presents  these 
estimated  average  fluctuations.  While  the  demand  for  electric  power 
increases  during  the  summer  months  similarly  to  the  demand  for  irriga- 
tion water,  the  increase  is  not  nearly  so  large.  The  following  table 
shows  that,  while  the  irrigation  demand  increases  during  the  summer 
months  164  per  cent  of  the  average  rate,  the  state-wide  demand  for 
power  increases  only  14  per  cent  of  the  average  rate. 

COMPARISON  OF  MONTHLY  DEMAND  FOR  ELECTRIC  POWER  AND 
IRRIGATION  WATER  IN  TERMS  OF  THE  AVERAGE  DEMAND. 


Month 


January . . 
February . 
March .  . . 
April .... 

May 

June 

July 

August ... 
September 
October .  . 
November 
Decemtxjr . 

Total.'; 


Electric  power 
consumpticn  in  per 
cent  of  annual  total 
(state-wide  average) 


100.0 


Irrigation  water 
consumption  in  per 
cent  of  annual  total 
(Sacramento  V::lley) 


0 

0 

1 

.5 

16 

20 

22 

20 

12 

4 

0 

0 


100.0 


Although  the  foregoing  table  shows  that,  at  the  time  the  demand  for 
irrigation  water  would  absorb  the  entire  capacity  of  the  reservoir  for 
equalizing  the  stream  flow,  power  can  not  be  generated  from  the 
released  water  in  accordance  with  the  need  for  this  commodity,  never- 
theless, there  wall  be  a  period  when  it  can,  while  the  area  to  be  irrigated 
is  changing  over  to  intensive  farming  and  the  full  capacity  of  the 
reservoir  is  not  required  for  irrigation  service.  The  ultimate  irriga- 
tion service,  especially  from  the  larger  reservoirs,  is  so  great  that  nmny 
years  will  pa.ss  before  the  demand  for  water  equals  the  total  available 
supply.  During  this  period  of  irrigation  development,  considerable 
advantage  may  be  obtained  in  the  generation  of  power  by  modifying 
the  time  of  release  of  water  from  the  reservoir  to  best  suit  the  needs  of 
power  generation.  A  more  satisfactory  power  output  may  be  obtained 
prior  to  the  ultimate  use  of  the  water  for  irrigation  tiian  could  be 
generated  from  the  water  if  released  at  the  present  time  in  accordance 
Avith  its  ultimate  disposition. 


40  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

Analyses  have  been  made  of  the  jiower  tliat  eould  be  f^enerated  under 
two  methods  of  release,  the  one  primarily  for  power  generation  and 
the  other  for  maximum  irrigation  use.  The  latter  analysis  approxi- 
mates the  way  in  which  water  would  be  released  iiltimately  from  the 
reservoir  under  the  "  C'ooi-dinated  Plan."  however,  some  modifieation 
would  be  made  in  order  that  Kennett  could  contribute  its  part  iu 
maintaining  navigation  and  salt  water  control  in  the  Sacramento  River. 

The  power  output,  while  releasing  stored  water  primarily  for  the 
generation  of  ])ower,  was  computed  for  a  i)lant  serving  its  individual 
system  of  i)ower  distribution.  Operating  for  this  service,  it  would  be 
desirable  to  secure  the  maximum  production  of  continuous  power  in 
order  to  minimize  duplicate  steam  stand-by  service.  The  estimated 
maximum  continuous  outjuit  was  classed  as  ])rinuu'y  power.  Power 
that  could  be  generated  at  intervals  economically,  in  adtlition  to  the 
continuous  output,  was  classed  as  secondary  power.  If  the  installation 
were  connected  into  an  extended  system  with  many  generating  plants, 
its  operation  would  be  adjusted  to  the  particular  needs  of  that  system 
and  the  output  of  secondary  power  might  vary  from  the  estiiiuites  of 
this  report.     The  primary  output,  however,  would  remain  the  same. 

The  estimates  of  yield  operating  primarily  for  power  generation 
were  carried  forward  month  by  month  as  in  the  anal.yses  of  water 
yield,  commencing  with  a  full  reservoir  at  the  close  of  1871.  The 
water  draft  through  the  turbines  was  varied  with  the  altering 
reservoir  level  to  maintain  a  uniformly  constant  primary  pow'er  output 
throughout  the  entire  54-year  period,  1871-1925.  Secondary  power 
was  included  in  the  estimates  during  those  periods  in  which  water  was 
available  in  excess  of  the  needs  for  generating  priuuiry  power.  There 
was  no  secondary  output  during  the  critical  seasons  that  determined 
the  volume  of  primary  power  that  could  be  generated.  Since  secondary 
power  requires  stand-by  generating  capacity  in  some  other  plant  for 
use  during  the  periods  in  which  the  secoudar^^  power  is  not  available, 
its  value  is  much  less  than  primary  power.  For  this  reason,  a  standard 
method  was  adopted  for  computing  secondary  powder  that  would  permit 
completion  with  the  nutans  at  hand  of  the  great  bulk  of  such  com])uta- 
tions  incident  to  formulating  the  "Coordinated  I'lan."  This  method 
yields  results  adequate  for  comparing  values  of  reservoir  sites  and 
alternate  reservoir  capacities  but,  as  later  pointed  out,  requires  modifi- 
cation for  other  purposes. 

The  staiulard  method  adoi)ted  for  computing  secondary  power 
included  quantities  in  the  estimates  only  during  those  periods  in  which 
the  reservoir  was  full  and  to  the  extent  it  Avas  economical  to  increase 
the  capacity  of  the  installation  to  use  water  that  otherwise  would  have 
wasted  over  the  spillway.  The  plant  efficiency  used  in  the  estimates, 
including  entrance,  penstock  and  draft-tube  losses,  fluctuated  above 
and  below  75  per  cent  for  the  varying  conditions  of  head  and  efficiency 
of  turbines  and  generators.  The  greatest  drawdown  during  the  54 
years  of  com])utation  was  to  seven-tenths  dei)th.  Deductions  in  head 
acting  on  the  turbines  were  made  for  the  raised  level  of  the  tail  race 
during  seasons  of  flood  or  large  discharge  from  the  reservoir. 

When  operating  ])rinuirily  for  the  needs  of  irrigation,  the  powder 
yield  was  com])utetl  for  the  same  installation  as  in  the  first  set  of 
computations.      Instead,   however,   of   varying   the   draft  through   the 


i 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


41 


turbines  to  maintain  a  nnifonn  output  of  primary  power,  the  draft 
was  limited  to  water  released  for  irrip:ation  plus  spill  when  the  reser- 
voir was  full  and  the  power  was  computed  on  a  100  per  cent  load  factor. 
In  the  first  set  of  computations,  operating:  primarily  for  the  generation 
of  power,  the  production  was  obtained  from  tlie  same  installation  on  a 
75  per  cent  load  factor  but  in  the  second  set  the  entire  installed  capacity 
of  the  plant  was  utilized  when  water  was  available.  At  times  in  the 
second  set  of  computations  when  the  available  water  was  less  than  the 
capacity  of  the  turbines,  tlie  plant  could  have  operated  on  other  than 
a  100  per  cent  daily  load  factor  but  the  average  power  output  would 
have  been  the  same.  Between  the  montlis  of  October  and  ]\Iarch,  there 
was  no  water  available  for  po^ver  generation  except  when  the  reservoir 
had  filled  to  overflowing.  The  average  period  of  plant  idleness  was 
four-tenths  of  a  month  for  tlie  lowest  dam  height  to  five  months  for 
the  620-foot  dam.  Xo  power  was  entered  in  the  computations  when  the 
reservoir  level  was  below  half  depth.  While  there  would  be  some 
output  under  these  conditions,  the  low  head,  the  poor  efficiencies  and 
the  infrequent  occurrence  would  make  it  relatively  small  in  amount. 
The  power  output  at  five  heights  of  dam  was  estimated  as  follows: 

POWER  YIELD— KENNETT  RESERVOIR. 


Average  vield  in 

.Average  yield  in  kilowatts — 

kilowatts- 

Height  of  dam 

Installed 

Operating  primarily  for  power. 

Operating  primarily 

in  feet 

caoacity  in 

Load  faotor=0."5 

for  irrigation. 

(n  feet 

k.  V.  a. 

Load  factor=1.00 

freeboard) 

P.  F.=0.80 

Primary 

Secondary 

Total 

Secondary 

220 

315.000 

37,800 

60,600 

08.400 

105.600 

320 

395,000 

60.500 

67,600 

ri7.io(i 

143.'.100 

420 

400,000 

113,400 

47,100 

160.500 

159,400 

520 

450.000 

1  -"5.600 

28,200 

203.800 

165.500 

620 

500,000 

248.800 

0 

248,800 

160.100 

The  primary  power  of  the  foregoing  table  is  a  steady  continuous 
output  but  the  secondary  is  intermittent.  The  characteristics  of  the 
.secondary  power  may  be  best  described  by  tabulating  the  average 
montiily  values  together  with  the  monthly  values  of  the  maximum, 
minimum  and  several  recent  years.  The  method  of  computing  second- 
ary power  employed  in  the  preparation  of  the  foregoing  table,  however, 
limits  the  time  of  year  for  the  generation  of  secondary  power  to  tlie 
periods  dui'ing  the  winter  and  spring  when  the  reservoir  is  full.  A 
part  of  this  secondary  power  could  be  generated  in  the  summer  months 
and  thus  secure  a  more  useful  distribution  througli  the  year.  The 
amount  would  be  limited  to  that  which  would  not  draw  the  reservoir 
level  below  its  cycle  in  generating  prinuiry  power  during  critical 
seasons.  The  power  output  at  tlie  ■12()-foot  dam,  therefore,  was  recom- 
puted on  this  basis.  A  change  was  also  introduced  in  the  computation 
of  primary  power.  It  was  generated  in  accord  with  the  average  state- 
wide variation  through  tlie  season  in  the  demand  for  power  instead 
of  at  a  uniformly  constant  rate  as  was  assumed  for  convenience  in  the 
first  set  of  com])utations.  The  state-Avide  average  demand  for  power 
increases  from  10  to  14  per  cent  above  the  average  during  the  midsum- 
mer months.    The  results  of  the  .second  set  of  computations  are  incorpo- 


42 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


rated  in  the  first  of  tlic  two  followinj^  tal)les  which  show  the  character- 
istics of  the  power  tliat  could  be  generated  at  the  Kennett  dam  site. 
Tiie  average  primary  power  output  of  113,400  kilowatts  is  identical 
with  tliat  of  the  first  set  of  computations  but  the  average  secondary 
output  increased  from  47,100  kilowatts  to  56,600  kilowatts  with  a  larger 
pi-oportion  during  the  summer  montlis.  The  characteristics  of  the 
secondary  powder  shown  in  the  first  table  are  those  while  operating 
primarily  for  power  generation.  The  second  of  the  two  following 
tables  shows  the  characteristics  of  the  secondary  power  (the  entire 
output)  if  operating  primarily  for  irrigation. 

CHARACTERISTICS  OF  POWER  OUTPUT. 

KENNETT  RESERVOIR— 420-FOOT  DAM. 

Operating  Primarily  for  Power. 

fii.st:illp(l  c;i|)aci(y  400,000  k.  v.  a.  (P.  F.=0.80). 
Load  factor,  0.75. 

Primary  power  in  accord  with  state-wide  demand. 
Reservoir  level  drawn  down  each  year  to  1923  levels. 


Month 


January. . . 
February.  . 
March .... 

April 

May 

June   

July 

August.  . . . 
September. 
October. .  . 
November. 
December . . 

Averagi 


Primary 
power  in 
kilowatts 


97,400 
101,900 
104,200 
109.000 
117.500 
124,200 
125,400 
126,700 
120,000 
113,400 
110,300 
109,400 


113,400 


Secondary  power  in  kilowatts 


Average  for 

54-year 

period, 

1871-1925 


41,100 
82,900 
91,500 
91,800 
72,900 
44,300 

37,roo 

32,800 
29,600 
33,700 
57,600 
65,300 


56,600 


Maximum 
year,  1878 


112,600 

108,100 

105,800 

101,000 

92,500 

85,800 

84,600 

83,300 

90,000 

96,600 

99,700 

100,600 


96,600 


Minimum 
year,  1924 


0 


1916 


112,600 

111,600 

105,800 

101,000 

84  000 

50,800 

55,200 

32,500 

23,800 

19,900 

27,500 

44,500 


64,000 


1920 


0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
30,700 
100,600 


11,000 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  POWER  OUTPUT. 

KENNETT  RESERVOIR— 420-FOOT  DAM. 

Operating  Primarily  for  Irrigation. 

-0.80). 


Installed  capacity  400,000  k.  v.  a.  (P.  F.: 

Load  factor,  1.00. 

Seasonal  irrigation  draft  4,276,000  acre-feet. 

Deficient  in  supply  one  year  in  ten. 

Without  deduction  for  prior  rights. 
Draft  from  reservoir  in  accord  with  the  demand  for  irrigation  water. 


Month 


January.  . . . 
February . . . 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September.  . 
October .... 
November.  . 
December.  . 

Average 


Primary 
power  in 
kilowatts 


Secondary  power  in  kilowatts 


Average 
1871-1925 


73,200 
164,300 
210,200 
235,100 
277,000 
272,900 
267,500 
240,800 
130,200 

38,700 

0 

3,300 


159,400 


Maximum 
ye.ar,  1890 


280,000 
280,000 
280,000 
280,000 
280,000 
280,000 
280,000 
280,000 
212,600 

69,200 
0 

42.700 


213.400 


Minimum 
year,  1924 


0 

0 

13,400 

70,700 

191,400 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 


2S,100 


1916 


149,600 

280,000 

280,000 

280.000 

280,000 

280.000 

280,000 

266.900 

151,800 

47,000 

0 

0 


190,900 


1920 


0 

0 

11,500 

80,100 

243,300 

233,300 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 


47,500 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


43 


Although,  in  generating:  the  power  listed  in  the  first  of  the  two 
foregoing  tables,  the  reservoir  would  be  operating  primarily  for  the 
generation  of  power,  nevertheless,  a  very  considerable  area  could  be 
irrigated  from  the  water  in  the  turbine  discharge.  The  amount  of 
water  tliat  could  be  diverted  in  accord  with  the  demand  for  irrigation 
water  and  the  area  that  it  would  irrigate  are  set  forth  in  the  folloAving 
tabulation.  It  shows,  for  a  420-foot  dam,  38.1  per  cent  of  the  ultimate 
area  could  be  irrigated  from  the  turbine  discharge  while  operating 
primarily  for  power  without  deduction  for  prior  rights  and  19.5  per 
cent  with  deduction  for  prior  rights. 

In  computing  the  volume  of  irrigation  water  entered  in  this  table, 
approximately  the  same  average  deficiency  w'as  allowed  in  the  supply 
that  is  contained  in  the  estimates  of  water  yield  from  the  reservoir  for 
like  heights  of  dam  when  operating  primarily  for  irrigation  w4th  a 
deficiency  in  supply  on  an  average  of  one  year  in  ten. 

Comparisons  in  this  instance  are  made  on  the  basis  of  the  amount 
of  average  deficiencies  rather  than  on  the  basis  of  the  frequency 
of  deficiencies  because  the  range  in  value  of  the  deficiencies  in  supply 
taken  from  the  turbine  discharge  is  small.  The  range  in  value 
of  deficiencies  operating  the  reservoir  primarily  for  irrigation  use  is 
large.  To  compare  the  two  on  the  basis  of  frequency  of  deficiencies 
would  not  compare  equivalent  supplies.  The  comparison  upon  the 
basis  of  equal  values  for  average  deficiencies  as  made  in  the  following 
table  is  not  entirely  of  equivalent  supplies  but  more  nearly  so  than  if 
the  comparison  were  made  on  the  former  basis. 


IRRIGATION  SERVICE  FROM  KENNETT  RESERVOIR. 
Operating  Primarily  for  Generation  of  Power. 


Water  available  in  turbine  discharge  for  diversion  in 

accord  with  irrigation  demand 

\et  area  i 

(net  consumi 

acre-feet  ] 

rrigable 
)tive  use  2.5 

Height  of 
dam  in  feet 

(.=  feet 
freeboard) 

Acre-feet 
per  season 

Deficiency  in  seasonal 

irrigation  supply  in  per  cent 

of  perfect  supply 

Average 

flow  in 

month  of 

August  in 

second-feet 

In  acres 

In  per  cent  of 
area  irrigable 

Average  of 
all  years 

Maximum 
year 

if  operating 

primarily  for 

irrigation 

Without  Deduction  for  Prior  Rights. 

220 
320 
420 
520 
620 

1.116.000 
1.221,000 
1.831,000 
1,986.000 
2,285,000 

n.6 

0.6 
1.6 
2.8 
3.2 

14.6 
5.2 
7.9 
6.9 
0.2 

5.000 
5,300 
6,200 

7,300 
7,900 

446,000 
488,000 
652,000 
794,000 
914,000 

76.0 
47.7 
38.1 
3').2 
35.9 

With  Deduction  for  Prior  Rights. 

220 
320 
420 

520 

620 

106.000 
•73.000 
552,000 
853.000 
1,170,000 

0  7 
0.9 
2  8 
3.6 
4.1 

33.8 
15.9 
17.0 
10.0 
8.2 

l.fiOO 
1,900 
2,8C0 
3,900 
•i.oOO 

42,000 

29.000 

221.000 

341,000 

468,000 

22.6 

5.1 

19.5 

22  1 
25  0 

*It  would  appear  by  comparison  with  the  quantities  for  other  dam  heights  that  this  value  should  be  larger  than 
73,000.  An  examination  cf  the  detail  power  computations  shows  that,  for  this  height  of  dam,  there  is  less  draw  down  in 
the  reservrir  during  the  month  of  Juno  than  for  other  heights.  This  is  purely  a  circumstance  of  the  application  of  uniform 
assumptions  to  the  computations  for  all  heights  of  dam.  In  this  instance  the  computations  carried  through  with  smaller 
relative  turbine  discharges  in  the  generation  of  power  during  June  than  for  other  dam  heights  and  hence  there  was  rela- 
tively less  water  available  for  new  irrigatiim  iLse  if  the  average  deficiency  were  not  allowed  tc  exceed  that  occurring  when 
operating  primarily  for  irrigation  with  a  deficienc.v  on  the  average  of  one  year  in  ten.  If  this  average  deficiency  were 
allowed  to  reach  2.0  per  cent  instead  of  only  0.9  per  cent,  the  water  available  in  the  turbine  discharge  for  new  irrigatii  n 
use  wruld  have  been  171,000  acre-feet. 


44 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


Flood  control. 

The  value  of  the  Keimett  reservoir  for  controlling  floods  depends 
upon  its  ability  to  absorb  the  volume  of  flow  that  constitutes  a  flood 
as  it  debouches  from  the  mountainous  areas  onto  the  Sacramento 
Valley  floor.  This  volume  is  very  large  on  the  main  Sacramento  River. 
The  largest  flood  since  nieasurements  were  started,  in  1895,  occurred  on 
February  ."l  1909.  The  crest  flow  was  278,000  second-feet.  The  mean 
flow  for  the  day  was  254.000  second-feet.  A  reservoir  of  small  capacity 
at  tlie  Kennett  site  would  have  little  value  for  controlling  such  floods. 
The  degree  of  control  that  could  be  established  would  increase  with 
the  size  of  the  reservoir  constructed.  The  limit  of  this  a])ility  would 
lie  in  the  size  of  flood  that  might  develop  upon  the  drainage  area 
(loAviistream  from  the  dam  site  but  tributary  to  the  channel  before  it 
emerges  from  the  mountainous  areas  upon  the  valley  floor. 

The  Kennett  reservoir  site  has  6649  square  miles  of  drainage  area 
tributar}'  to  it  upon  which  originates  about  three-fourths  of  the  run-off 
from  the  main  Sacramento  basin.  Between  the  dam  site  and  Red  Bluif, 
which  is  at  the  edge  of  the  valley  floor,  there  are  2609  square  miles  of 
drainage  area  tliat,  it  is  estimated,  might  produce  a  flood  as  great  as 
125,000   second-feet.     Therefore,   the   greatest   control   that   could   be 


PLATE 

B 

Number  ( 

J      1     9    :   T  i  *    1   c  1 

Df  d^s  in  100  yean 

3   on  which  values  are  exceeded 

iir€\       1    ionnl 

+- 
u 

(U 

<»- 

i_ 
o 

V) 

ioo^ 

::iy 

— i- 

— 

r** 

pu 

-5^ 

^ 

««. 

,- 

— 

— 

400- 
-300- 

-200- 

— 

^^•~ 

-  = 

■^^^ 

.iii 

*^ 

— 

— 

^  — 

^^^ 

^-^~--4^ 

— 

-  i/Maximum  f 

low  125.000  sec. ft. 

'     "'"'^■^l-w 

"^ 

•^■^ 

< 

*'^:r" 

"^ 

•v 

i^    ° 

■^ 

■V, 

^ 

1 

h-s 

A 

(      1 

-v,^ 

N, 

-100- 

Maximum  flow  150,000  sec.  ft' 

\ 

% 

\ 

1 

^                 o>, 

t 

80. 

1 

V 

V 

1, 

,  s 

^o 

V 

■\ 

s 

^. 

^. 

k 

?o 

S 

T3 

C 
(0 
to 

z> 
o 

s: 
+- 

c 

> 
•♦- 
o 
(0 

a 

(D 
O 

-40 

Maximum  flow  175,000  se 

C  ft^'^ 

h 

V 

C.  TT.        ^ 

\ 

Y , 

-30- 

\ 

^ 

•1 

V 

w* 

20- 

V 

A 

I* 

\ 

\ 

-10- 

^ 

\ 

1 

\ 

X 

-8-1 

1 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

-6- 

\ 

o 

.  \ 

-4- 

1 

, 

I 

3- 

1 

oo| 

-2- 

1 

1 

Space:  Required  in  Kennett  Reservoir 
TO  Control  Floods  on  Sacramento  River 

Controlled   Flow    Measured  at  Red   Bluff 

DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


45 


obtained  tlirouj^h  llic  Kennott  reservoir  would  he  to  limit  the  flood 
flow  at  Ked  Bliitt'  to  VJo.OOO  second-feet.  This  would  re(|iiire  the 
complete  absorption  of  the  flow  enterinji'  the  Kcinictt  reservoir  during 
tlie  passage  of  the  iiiaxiinnm  flood  erest. 

An  extensive  stuily  of  the  possibilities  of  eoiilrolliiig  floods  by  reser- 
voirs has  been  undertaken  by  these  investigations.  The  detail  of  the 
various  considerations  are  so  great  that  the  subject  is  presented  in 
a  separate  volume.  Bulletin  No.  14.  "The  Control  of  Floods  by  Reser- 
voirs." Here  it  is  demonstrated  that  the  Kennett  reservoir  could  be 
utilized  for  reducing  the  maximum  flood  flow  at  Red  Blufi:  from  278,000 
to  125,000  second-feet  in  harmony  witli  the  conservation  of  water  and 
the  generation  of  power.  This  would  recpiire  at  times  the  use  of 
451,000  acre-feet  of  reservoir  space  for  detention  of  flood  flows.  The 
larger  the  reservoir,  the  easier  it  would  be  to  secure  a  harmonious 
method  of  operation  that  would  control  floods  without  detriment  to 
the  conservation  values  of  the  reservoir.  To  secure  these  combined 
benefits,  it  is  essential  tliat  a  specially  prepared  schedule  of  operation 
be  instituted. 

The  degree  of  control  that  may  be  effected  by  tlie  utilization  of 
various  amounts  of  space  in  the  Kennett  reservoir  is  expressed  on 
Plate  B,  "Space  Required  in  Kennett  Reservoir  to  Control  Floods  on 
Sacramento  River."  This  diagram  is  constructed  from  data  taken 
from  Bulletin  No.  14,  "The  Control  of  Floods  by  Reservoirs."  It  is 
empirically  constructed  from  run-off  records.  Its  purpose  is  to  ascer- 
tain the  amount  of  reservoir  space  that  may  be  needed  to  detain  flood 
flows  in  excess  of  a  desired  maximum  controlled  flow  and  the  prob- 
ability that  this  space  will  be  adequate  under  the  most  severe  condi- 
tions.    The  following  tabulated  values  are  taken  from  this  chart : 


SPACE  REQUIRED  IN  KENNETT  RESERVOIR  TO  CONTROL  FLOODS  ON 

SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


Maximum 

Space  required  in  reservoir  in  acre-feet 

controlled  low 
at  Red  Bliift 
in  second-feet 

Exceeded  on  the 

average  one  day 

in  iO  years 

Exceeded  on  the 

average  one  day 

in  25  years 

Exceeded  on  the 

average  one  day 

in  50  years 

Exceeded  on  the 

average  one  day 

in  100  years 

Exceeded  en  the 

average  one  day 

in  1000  years" 

125.000 
150,000 
175,000 

280,000 

158.000 

79.000 

385,000 
252.000 
163,000 

454.000 
326.000 
237,000 

518,000 
395.000 
306,000 

731,000 
507,000 
504.000 

Improvements   flooded    by    reservoir. 

The  lands  flooded  and  the  marginal  areas  above  the  flow  line  that 
would  have  to  be  acquired  if  the  Kennett  reservoir  were  constructed 
are  rough  and  mountainous  and  have  no  agricultural  value.  The 
slopes  are  mostly  steep  and  rocky  and  are  used  only  for  grazing  i)ur- 
poses.  The  assessed  values  range  from  $0.50  to  $10  per  acre  and 
average  $3.75  over  the  entire  reservoir. 

No  towns  of  imi)ortance  are  located  within  the  reservoir  area,  and 
very  few  ranch  improvements.  Kennett,  the  largest  toAvu,  has  recently 
suffered  a  loss  in  population  and  property  values  by  the  closing  of  the 
I\Iammoth  mine.  For  years  this  mine  was  a  large  producer,  but  was 
shut  do^^^l  in  1925  upon  exhaustion  of  its  ore  bodies.     Its  smelter  and 


46  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

bag  house  have  been  salvaged.  Other  towns  are  Copper  City  on  Squaw 
Creek,  and  Dehnar,  Pollock,  Antler  and  Delta,  along  the  state  highway. 
None  of  these  have  an  assessed  valuation  exceeding  $4,000. 

Tiie  princii)al  properties  that  would  be  affected  by  the  construction 
of  the  Kennett  reservoir  are  the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad,  the  state 
highway,  and  the  Bully  Hill  mine  and  smelter.  The  railroad  and  high- 
way could  be  moved  to  new  locations  Avithout  detriment  to  their  public 
service.  The  cost  of  doing  this  is  large  and  constitutes  a  substantial 
part  of  the  total  cost  of  the  reservoir.  It  ranges  from  40  per  cent  for 
the  low  heights  of  dam  to  20  per  cent  for  the  greatest  height. 

Tlie  moving  of  the  main  line  track  of  the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad 
through  the  Sacramento  Canyon  would  be  the  largest  single  item  of 
cost  for  rights  of  way.  It  extends  the  entire  length  of  the  reservoir 
and  would  have  to  be  relocated  for  all  heights  of  dam.  Twelve  miles 
of  line  would  be  submerged  by  a  220-foot  dam,  20  miles  by  a  420-foot 
dam,  and  26  miles  by  a  620-foot  dam.  In  order  to  secure  good  align- 
ment and  avoid  heavy  grades  it  probably  would  be  necessary  to  start 
the  relocation  at  the  city  of  Redding.  A  tentative  route  has  been 
reconnoitered  on  the  easterly  side  of  tlie  river.  Although  this  route 
would  shorten  the  line  about  eight  miles  for  the  420-foot  dam,  it  is 
costly  because  of  several  tunnels  and  major  bridge  crossings.  For  dam 
heights  greater  than  420  feet,  the  crossing  at  the  Pit  River  becomes 
awkward  and  very  expensiA^e. 

The  second  largest  item  in  the  cost  of  rights  of  way  would  be  the 
relocation  of  3  to  15.5  miles  of  the  Pacific  Highway  northerly  from  the 
Pit  River.  This  would  involve  heavy  grading  and  the  construction  of 
several  major  bridges.  Preliminary  studies  indicate  that  the  length  of 
the  new  route  for  some  heights  of  dam  would  be  slightly  greater  than 
the  present  one,  however,  present  grades  would  be  elminated,  as  the 
new  road  would  skirt  the  reservoir  for  several  miles. 

The  most  important  mining  property  affected  by  the  construction 
of  the  Kennett  reservoir  is  the  Bully  Hill  mine  and  smelter  on  Squaw 
Creek,  a  tributary  of  the  Pit.  This  was  originally  a  copper-producing 
property,  but  after  remaining  idle  for  several  years  the  mine  was 
re-opened  in  1924  for  the  production  of  zinc  oxide.  Ore  from  this  and 
the  Afterthought  mine,  on  the  south  side  of  the  Pit  River  near  Ingot, 
is  shipped  to  the  Southern  Pacific  main  line  in  the  Sacramento  Canyon 
over  a  standard-gauge  track  located  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Pit  River. 
Ore  from  the  Afterthought  mine  is  conveyed  to  the  branch  railroad  by 
an  aerial  tram.  A  ])art  of  the  tram  and  all  of  the  branch  railroad 
would  be  flooded  for  heights  of  dam  over  300  feet.  The  smelter  is  not 
now  in  use.  It  would  be  flooded  only  for  dam  heights  greater  than  600 
feet.  Both  mines  are  above  the  flow  line  for  all  heights.  In  1924,  the 
county  assessed  valuation  of  the  Bully  Hill  properties  was  $100,000. 
In  1925,  the  Bully  Hill  smelter  and  mine,  together  with  the  railroad, 
were  sold  at  public  auction  for  $788,827.24  in  foreclosure  proceedings. 

Other  mining  properties  affected  are  the  Herault  smelter,  located  on 
the  right  bank  of  the  Pit  River,  between  the  McCloud  River  and  Squaw 
Creek,  and  the  Arps  mine,  near  Copper  City  on  Squaw  Creek.  The 
Herault  smelter  would  be  flooded  by  heights  of  dam  greater  than  200 
feet.  The  mine  is  located  about  700  feet  higher  than  the  smelter,  well 
above  the  flow  line  of  the  largest  reservoir.     At  the  present  time  both 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


47 


smelter  and  mine  are  inactive.  The  county  assessed  valuation  of  the 
smelter  in  1924  was  $32,000.  The  Arps  mine  is  a  copper  and  zinc  pros- 
pect. It  lies  at  an  elevation  that  wouhl  he  flooded  hy  a  400-t'oot  dam. 
In  1924  the  county  assessed  valuation  of  this  i)roperty  was  $28,500. 

The  state  fish  hatchery  at  P>aird,  on  the  McCloud  River,  at  an  eleva- 
tion of  750  feet,  would  be  flooded  by  all  heights  of  dam. 

The  estimated  cost  of  acquiring  the  lands  and  marginal  areas,  relocat- 
ing the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad  and  the  state  highway,  compensating 
the  owners  of  all  mines  and  other  improvements  for  the  loss  incurred 
by  the  construction  of  the  Kennett  reservoir,  is  set  forth  in  the  follovi^- 
ing  table  for  five  heights  of  dam : 

ESTIMATED  COST  OF  FLOODING  LANDS  AND  IMPROVEMENTS  BY 

KENNETT  RESERVOIR. 


Height  uf  dam 

in  feet 

(5  feet  freeboard) 

Cost  in  dollars 

Cost  in  per  cent 
of  total  cost 
of  reservoir 

220 

320 

•420 

520 
620 

514,370,000 
16,780,000 
22,970.000 
32,710,000 
40,000,000 

64 
50 
42 
37 
31 

Type  of  dam. 

Foundation  conditions  at  the  Kennett  dam  site,  as  disclosed  by  the 
diamond  drill  borings  and  the  geologic  report  of  Prof.  George  D. 
Louderback,  are  suitable  for  a  high  dam  of  any  type.  Topographic 
features  and  the  absence  of  earth  in  large  quantities,  however,  limit 
considerations  to  a  gravity-concrete  or  a  rock-fill  dam.  An  ample 
supply  of  suitable  rock  adjoins  the  dam  site  at  high  elevations  so  that 
the  construction  of  a  rock-fill  dam  could  proceed  under  unusually 
favorable  conditions.  Preliminary  estimates  indicate  that  a  rock-fill 
dam  may  be  constructed  for  somewhat  less  cost  than  a  gravity-concrete 
dam.  The  added  cost  of  power  and  flood  control  outlets  through  the 
thicker  rock-fill  dam,  however,  makes  the  total  cost  about  the  same  for 
either  type.  The  estimates  in  this  report  are  based  upon  a  gravity- 
concrete  dam. 


Layout  at  dam. 

Several  trial  layouts  M'ere  made  of  the  dam,  power  plant  and  flood 
control  outlets  at  the  Kennett  dam  site.  These  preliminary  studies 
indicate  that,  in  general,  it  is  desirable  to  locate  the  power  plant  a  dis- 
tance downstream  from  the  dam  and  convey  the  water  to  it  in  pressure 
tunnels  leading  from  the  reservoir  through  the  canyon  walls.  This 
arrangement  relieves  serious  congestion  in  the  narrow  gorge  at  the 
foot  of  the  dam.  It  also  leaves  the  s])ace  about  the  dam  for  the  con- 
venient location  of  spillways  and  flood  control  outlets.  These  take 
up  so  much  room,  because  of  the  large  volume  of  water  to  be  cared  for, 
that  no  suitable  arrangement  could  be  found  in  the  time  allotted  to  this 
study,  with  the  power  plant  at  the  foot  of  the  dam. 

The  most  advantageous  and  economic  layout  varies  with  each  height 
of  dam.     Tentative  plans  were  made  for  five  heights.     While  differing 


48  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

ill  detail,  tlie  Jayout  lor  the  420-lo()1  lieij^lit  is  lypiral  and  is  described 
Jierein  for  illustration.  It  is  also  dclinatcd  on  IMate  C,  "Layout  at 
KeniU'tl  Dam  and  Kcsci-voir  Avm  and  Capacitx'  ("urvcs."  The  posi- 
tion oi'  llie  dam  sJio\\n  on  this  plate  is  the  one  most  advantageous  i'or  a 
height  of  420  feet.  The  most  advantayeons  j)ositioii  ehaiiges  for  each 
Jieight.  A  dotted  line  on  Plate  C  indicates  the  ])()sition  of  the  upstream 
face  most  favorable  for  the  ultimate  raising  of  the  dam  to  a  height  of 
G20  feet. 

A  cross-section  of  the  dam  is  also  shown  on  Plate  C.  It  has  a  top 
width  of  20  feet,  a  freeboard  of  5  feet  above  the  highest  water,  a 
slightl}'  inclined  upstream  face  and  a  slope  on  the  downstream  face  of 
5  to  1  on  the  ui)per  'VJO  feet  and  a  1  to  1  slope  below  this.  The  dam 
would  rest  on  foundations  stripped  to  firm  rock.  Seal  would  be  made 
by  grouting  from  two  rows  of  holes  along  the  upstream  face  of  the  dam, 
extending  as  deep  into  the  foundation  as  may  be  advisable.  Drain 
pipes  along  the  full  length  of  the  dam  downstream  from  the  grout 
holes  would  connect  through  vertical  pipes  to  drainage  tunnels  in  the 
dam. 

The  overflow  spillway  would  be  divided  in  two  i)arts,  half  at  either 
end  of  the  dam  crest.  Each  section  would  have  a  length  of  222  feet 
and  a  waterway  20  feet  deep.  The  outflow  from  the  reservoir  would 
be  controlled  by  hydraulically  operated  drum  gates.  The  two  sections 
together  would  have  a  capacity  of  125,000  second-feet  without  encroach- 
ing on  the  five-foot  freeboard  of  the  dam.  About  190,000  second-feet 
could  be  passed  without  its  being  overtopped. 

Water  flowing  over  the  spillway  would  be  intercepted  in  a  concrete 
waterway  40  to  70  feet  wide  and  35  to  40  feet  deep  and  be  conducted 
to  the  river  channel  300  feet  downstream  from  the  toe  of  the  dam. 
The  channel  would  be  lined  with  2  feet  of  concrete  heavily  reinforced 
and  anchored  to  bed  rock.  Under  drains  would  relieve  upward  pres- 
sure from  percolating  water  below  the  concrete  lining  should  there 
be  any.  The  waterw^ay  area  of  these  channels  was  computed  for  a 
50  per  cent  increase  in  volume  for  entrained  air.  The  sides  would 
extend  twenty  feet  above  this. 

Flood  control  outlets  througli  the  dam  would  be  provided  in  addi- 
tion to  the  overflow  spillway.  These  would  be  arranged  in  two  bat- 
teries. The  upper  one  would  consist  of  21  outlets  each  166  inches  in 
diameter.  They  would  be  spaced  30  feet  in  the  central  part  of  tlie  dam 
with  their  inlets  60  feet  below  the  top.  The  greatest  drawdown  in 
the  reservoir  for  flood  control  would  be  21  feet  below^  the  top  of  the 
dam.  The  outlets  would  be  lined  with  three-eighths  inch  steel  plate. 
Flow  would  be  controlled  through  each  outlet  at  the  upstream  face  of 
the  dam  by  a  roller  sluice  gate  mechanically  operated  from  the  top. 
The  gates  would  be  protected  l)y  steel  trash  racks. 

The  lower  battery  of  outlets  would  consist  of  two  118-iiich  pipes 
with  inlets  350  feet  below  the  top  of  the  dam.  Jii  this  position  they 
would  be  useful  in  draining  the  reservoir  should  this  ever  become 
desirable.  They  would  be  constructed  similar  to  the  upper  battery 
of  outlets  except  that  the  steel  plate  would  increase  to  seven-eiglitlis 
inch  thickness  toward  the  downstream  end  where  a  balanced  needle 
valve  would  be  placed. 


PLATE  C 


''in  thousands  of  acres 


»oo                      \  X  •  - 

so                   70                    80                   90                   too                  110 

'1  INTAKE    TOWERS 

'°0a     \/        -xV\\                        -*_ 

\\  ^^^-^A^  -  -  - 

1 

-"/-        s\l  OVERFLOW    SPILLWAY 

.__    Xli-LLU 

VS--~.     w    \  W             " 

1 \ ^_,. 

-   i-  - 

-XX  ,^--C;XxV\  ''    linf               ^• 

/      v^^" — \^ \  'vCK"C3r^'  '    V 

-4**"^ 

1 

''°"^^r^^\^{/fv  "^ 

1 

■"•^1            1 

1 

^^--    cu«^^-   ,    1  1   1    1    1    1 

^^^iT^/^Y'^rJ-JJ.i  { 

J/y^/y'v////  il       »•'''' 

1 

/// / /^    '1/ /  M^riMv-^H^ 

...        \ 

Yrrr-ky^/yf.'  J/^4f^ 

] 

^  /  /)    \\(^  r^h^3^/\~r 

t" 

1 

/  J 1   1  fl    fi  i(~  yT"' 

'/  /Jj  1   /)/     fl  Jf^r-:CJ 

'^C^t^fi^jJ'  Ml]    \v\^          L_ 

1  \\cwr  f^J^J    iv&V' 

/    /)  111 /\  (v  f  /^,-    /  )1  \'         i 

'   {/)))'i  /  /    1    ( C^ yU'  )         ' 

\  VvL':^^)'  /  J  )  fxr^        ' 

]] ll\]\'\  ( i^y' J }  K  (/      ' 

! 

^J'  1/ 1/  n  1 '  i  c-^  /J)  1/        ' 

[ 

; 

■'yff//  iK^v'   )  S  f/^£^V//!    '    '              1 

\ 

T 

^ .  Af  r-^'ih'Ti^iy^f'/^}       '             1 

1 

I 

^J^f^Ti^^-v^^^iS^       \ 

'T" 

— ( — i — t — . — 1 

1 
— t — 

'^v^^^i^^'^^^i^S^/^ M'P  i—     I— 

)    CAPACITY 

CURVES 

1 
— ) — 

^^yjf^^^^^W'i   *4-' 

_    AREA    AN[ 

.?~^y]vvu^*^  ( cLi      ' 

1 

x:;: 

t  ■  ;  1 — ' — 

^^sA~r<~/J)     /r/^\l*fe'          ' 

1  ,     !     i 

)\  aCiT/A  I    fl/'f™ 

/      )      )    \V\(     /u    )      /'    11  I'l^l       1 

— 

1 

1 

'^/r^jP  ^'  . 

6                     7 

S                     9 

10 

1 

i. 


{   in  millions  of  acre  feet 


1200— 


1100- 


1000- 


Heismt  of  Dam  (above  low  water  level) 

420  Ft. 

CAPACiTy  OF  Reservoir 

2,940^00  Ac.  Ft. 

Capacity  of  Flood  Control  Outlets 

125^00  SecFt. 

\  Capacity  of  Overflow  Spillways 

125,000  Sec.  Ft. 

j  Installed  Capacity  of  Power  Plant 

400,000  K.V.A. 

c 
o 

15 
> 

u 

U 


900- 


800- 


700- 


Layout  at  Kennett  Dam 

AND 

SERVoiR  Area  and  Capacity  Curves 


600 


TROL     CHANNEL 

\ 


50667 — pages   18-41 


Area  in  thousands  of  acres 

'°  20  30  40  50  60  70  80  90  100  110 


r-|— 

rn 

rn 

n 

n 

n 

p 

|— 1 

|— 1 

n 

[— 1 

— 1 

[—] 

— 1 

—I 

-T— , 

-^ 

p-p 

T~l 

m 

"n 

~v 

_^ 

— 1 

— r-i 

-- 

- 

- 

H 

- 

i 

- 

- 

- 

- 

r 

- 

~ 

- 

~ 

- 

-- 

- 

I 

I' 

:: 

._ 

—  . 

"- 

—  - 

-- 

_ 

_ 

I 

[^ 

-■- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

J 

- 

' 

- 

- 

- 

- 

t 

~ 

- 

-- 

- 

-.^ 

- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

„_. 

- 

-- 

-- 

^1. 

- 

- 

;^ 

^- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

" 

_ 

-r 

'~ 

.-!<•, 

,_—  " 

•^ 

„ 

^ 

. 

o>y 

.J—' 

■T— 

- 

^ 

'— 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

-J 

- 

- 

- 

h 

-J 

4 

^ 

-- 

- 

-^ 

;; 

:- 

-!?! 

!!_ 

6Xm^' 

~ 

,_ 

-- 

- 

- 

- 

-^ 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

'__ 

- 

- 

i 

7' 

y 

^ 

- 

-^ 

rsJ"^ 

vT 

- 

-- 

- 

-- 

"- 

,_ 

— 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

" 

' 

- 

~ 

-\ 

-" 

-> 

r^ 

^ 

^ 

r^ 

- 

-- 

- 

-- 

- 

-- 

-- 

~ 

„_ 

-^ 

-- 

-j 

- 

- 

„- 

_ 

_ 

_ 

> 

<« 

,. 

~~ 

/ 

" 

._ 

— 

- 

, 

J 

«*" 

■ 

"■ 

■ 

■■ 

L  ~ 

/ 

' 

4 

1 

>" 

/ 

|— 

i 

t 

- 

-_ 

n 

_ 

r 

_ 

_ 

_ 

_. 

^ 

_ 

_ 

_ 

_ 

1^ 

_ 

_ 

_. 

_  _ 





__ 

_ 

^ 

~ 

/\ 

t 

~ 

~^ 

~ 

^~ 

^ 

— 1 

'" 

— 

~ 

r^ 

~" 

^ 

- 

- 

-^ 

-  -* 

— 

^-1 

^ 

— 

~n 

A 

r- 

- 

-- 

/ 

y 

L 

t 

1 

■ 

' 

-^ 

- 

- 

+ 

^/ 

^ 

_ 

_ 

^ 

_i 

_ 

_ 

_ 

_. 

_ 

_ 

_J 

_ 

_j_ 

__ 

---U 

. , 

1 

-+-! 

- 

- 

- 

~ 

- 

- 

- 

~ 

- 

- 

- 

^ 

- 

- 

-A 

H 

AREA    AND    CAPACITY    CURVES 

^- 

T— r— 

. 



• 

!    1    1    1 

^~ 

~T~ 

- 

1 

„ 

- 

-^ 

- 

- 

_ 

' 

_ 

_ 

Capacity    in  millions  of  acre  feet 


PLATE  C 


HEI6HT  OF  Dam  (above  low  water  level) 

420  Ft. 

Capacity  of  R&slrvoir 

2,9WgOOO  Ac.  Ft. 

Capacity  of  Flood  Control  Outlets 

125^00  Sec.  Ft. 

Capaoty  of  Overflow  Spillways 

125,000  Sec  Ft. 

Installed  Capacity  of  Power  Plant 

400jOOO  K.V.A. 

Layout  at  Kennett  Dam 

AND 

Reservoir  Area  and  Capacity  Curves 


50667 — pages  48-J9 


DEVELOPMENT  OF   I'Pl'EK  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  41) 

The  water  eseapinjr  Iroiii  the  upper  hatlery  of  outlets  would  strilce 
tlu'  (lownstreain  faee  of  the  (lain  l)efore  reaeiiiii<>'  the  eoiiei-ete  liued 
collet'tiiio:  ehaiiuel  at  its  hase.  This  ehanuel  Avould  intercept  the  watei- 
runnin<r  down  the  faee  of  the  dam  and  earry  it  to  the  bottom  of  the 
gorge.  The  channel  would  be  M)  to  100  feet  wide  and  ."{0  feet  deep. 
It  would  be  lined  with  reinforced  concrete  2  feet  thick  and  securely 
anchored  to  bed  rock.    This  channel  would  center  in  a  pool  50  feet  deep 

ii  the  bottom  of  the  gorge  when  the  outlets  are  operating  to  full  capac- 
ity. The  total  capacity  of  these  outlets  would  be  12."), 000  second-feet, 
'•'heir  capacity  combined  with  tliat  of  the  overflow  spillway  would  be 
2.10,000  second-feet,  twice  the  once-in-2o-year  flood  at  the  Kennett  dam 
site.  Their  combined  capacity  Avitli  the  reservoir  level  at  the  top  of  the 
dcdii  would  exceed  -SOO.OOO  second-feet.  The  crest  flow  of  the  largest 
■  iood  observed  within  30  years  of  record  at  Red  IJluti'  is  278,000  .second- 
feet. 

The  position  of  the  power  plant  1800  feet  downstream  from  the 
dam  is  shoAni  on  Plate  C,  "La,vout  at  Kennett   Dam  and  Reservoir 

'  rea  and  Capacity  Curves."  Water  would  ])e  conducted  from  the 
reservoir  to  the  power  house  in  two  concrete  lined  tunnels  22  feet  in 
diameter.  Each  one  of  these  would  divide  into  .")  steel  penstocks  10 
feet  in  diameter  at  a  point  directly  opposite  the  power  liouse.  Balanced 
-.-^edle  valves  would  control  the  flow  from  the  penstocks  at  the  inlet  to 
the  turbines.  Valve  by-pa.sses  around  the  turbines  would  be  provided 
for  use  as  irrigation  outlets  when  the  turbine  discharge  is  not  sufficient. 
The  flow  into  the  two  power  tunnels  would  be  controlled  by  balanced 
valves  hydraulically  operated  in  reinforced  concrete  gate  towers  located 
•.t  the  upstream  face  of  the  dam.  The  gates  would  be  protected  by  steel 
trash  racks. 

Ten  generating  units  would  be  installed  in  the  power  hou.se,  each 
with  a  capacity  of  40.000  k.v.a.  These  would  be  directl.v  connected 
to  vertical  variable  head  reaction  turbines.  The  building  would  be  of 
steel  and  reinforced  concrete. 

Cost  estimates. 

For  the  purpo.se  of  estimating  costs,  examination  was  made  for  a 
source  of  concrete  aggregate.  Tests  made  in  the  laboratories  of  the 
State  Highway  Commission  indicate  that  the  rock  at  the  dam  site  is 
suitable  for  this  purpose  and  that  when  crushed  and  rolled  would  make 
suitable  sand.  Also,  a  suppl.v  of  sand  and  gravel  that  makes  satis- 
factory concrete  lies  in  tiie  Sacramento  River  near  Redding. 


4—50667 


^  f  ^^  \  .  ^ 


-SIX 


/^ 


M 


fif    TA    TUOYAJ 


^S  J0-,  ."•)«(.. 


r? 


WOJIflJVO 


WOj?«3VO 


/ 


fl3V!fl  0^ 


2l-iit  aaaay — Tdd03 


DEVELOPMENT  OF   UPPER   SA( HAMEXTO  RIVER.  49 


''l'^  1 


lie  wjtti'i-  oseapin^-  rrom  tlic  iipjx'i-  battery  ol'  outlets  would  strik-e 
the  (lowMstream  face  of  llu'  dam  het'oi-e  i-eaeliiiif«-  the  cniierete  lined 
collect iii<i-  channel  at  its  base.  This  chaiinel  would  iutei-eept  the  water 
rumuujr  down  the  face  of  tiie  dam  and  carry  it  to  the  bottom  of  the 
iror^'e.     The  channel  would  be  50  to  100  feet  wide  and  :{()  feet  deep. 

it  would  be  lined  with  reinforced  concrete  2  feet  thick  and  securely 
anchored  to  bed  rock.    This  channel  would  center  in  a  pool  7^0  feet  deep 

n  the  bottom  of  the  <rorg:e  when  the  outlets  are  operatinj;  to  full  capac- 
ity. The  total  capacity  of  these  outlets  would  be  T2."). (KK)  second-feet, 
■^heir  capacity  condjined  with  that  of  the  overflow  spillway  would  be 
2r)0,00()  second-feet,  twice  the  once-in-25-year  flood  at  the  Kennett  dam 
site.  Their  cqmbined  capacity  with  the  reservoir  level  at  the  top  of  the 
d.nn  would  exceed  .'300,000  second-feet.     The  ci-est  flow  of  the  larfjest 

lood  observed  within  30  years  of  record  at  Ked  Bluff  is  278,000  second- 
feet. 

The  position  of  the  power  plant  1800  feet  downstream  from  the 
dam  is  shown  on  Plate  C,  "Layout  at  Kennett   Dam  and  Reservoir 

'  rea  and  Capacity  Curves."  Water  would  be  conducted  from  the 
reservoir  to  the  power  house  in  two  concrete  lined  tunnels  22  feet  in 
diameter.  Each  one  of  these  would  divide  into  5  steel  penstocks  10 
feet  in  diameter  at  a  x:)oint  directly  opposite  the  power  house.  Balanced 
.-.^edle  valves  would  control  the  flow  from  the  penstocks  at  the  inlet  to 
the  turbines.  Valve  by-passes  around  the  turbines  would  be  provided 
for  use  as  irrig-ation  outlets  when  the  turbine  discharge  is  not  sufficient. 
The  flow  into  the  two  power  tunnels  would  be  controlled  by  balanced 
valves  hydraulically  operated  in  reinforced  concrete  gate  towers  located 
■.t  the  upstream  face  of  the  dam.  The  gates  would  be  protected  by  steel 
trash  racks. 

Ten  generating  units  would  be  installed  in  the  power  house,  each 
with  a  capacity  of  40,000  k.v.a.  These  would  be  directly  connected 
to  vertical  variable  head  reaction  turbines.  The  building  would  be  of 
steel  and  reinforced  concrete. 

Cost  estimates. 

For  the  purpose  of  estimating  costs,  examination  was  made  for  a 
source  of  concrete  aggregate.  Tests  made  in  the  laboratories  of  the 
State  Highway  Commission  indicate  that  the  rock  at  the  dam  site  is 
suitable  for  this  purpose  and  that  when  crushed  and  rolled  would  make 
suitable  sand.  Also,  a  supply  of  sand  and  gi-avel  that  makes  satis- 
factory concrete  lies  in  the  Sacramento  River  near  Redding. 


4—50667 


50 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


The  unit  i)rices  used  in  preparing  the  e.stimates  of  cost  are: 

Excavation—  Item  unit  price 

In  dam  foundations  above  river  level $1.50  per  cubic  yard 

In  dam  foundations  below  river  level 4.00  per  cubic  yard 

For   spillway   channel 1.50  per  cubic  yard 

For  collection  channel  at  base  of  dam $1.50  to  4.00  per  cubic  yard 

In    pressure    tunnels 6.00  per  cubic  yard 

In    penstock    tunnels 8.50   per  cubic  yard 

Backfill 1.25  per  cubic  yard 

Concrete — 

Mass  concrete  in  dam 7.00  per  cubic  yard 

Reinforced  concrete   in   parapets 19.50  per  cubic  yard 

Reinforced  concrete   in   .spillway  piers 16.00  per  cubic  yard 

Reinforced   concrete    in   l)ridge   over   spillway 24.00  per  cubic  yard 

Reinforced  concrete  in  sijillway  and  collection  channels 12.50  per  cubic  yard 

Reinforced  concrete  in  gate   towers 24.00  per  cubic  yard 

Concrete  lining  in  pressure  and  penstock  tunnels 20.00  per  cubic  yard 

Concrete   in   penstock  cradles 12.50  per  cubic  yard 

Steei^ — 

Reinforcing  steel $0,053  per  lb. 

Pipe  and  outlet  lining .083  per  lb. 

Trash    racks .083  per  lb. 

Drum  gates  in  spillway .10     per  lb. 

Balanced    valves — inlet    tower .20     per  lb. 

Balanced  needle  valves .28     per  lb. 

Sluice  gates $12,000  to   $17,000   each 

PoviTER  Plant  Equipment — 

Buildings  and  all  generating,  hydraulic,  switching  and  miscel- 
laneous equipment  including  balanced  needle  valves  at 
the    turbines $35.00  per  k.v.a. 

Overhead — 

Administration  and  engineering 10  per  cent 

Contingencies 15  per  cent 

Interest  during  construction 6  per  cent  compounded  semi-annually 

Based  upon  the  foregoing  unit  prices  and  quantities  computed  from 
the  preliminary  laj'outs  and  designs,  the  cost  of  the  five  heights  of 
dam  was  estimated  as  in  the  following  table  .succeeded  by  the  detail 
of  the  estimate  for  the  ■420-foot  dam. 


COST  OF  KENNETT  RESERVOIR  AND  POWER  PLANT. 

Heistbt  of 
dam  in  feet 

(5  feet 
freeboard) 

Dam 

Lands  and 
irapr.  vements 

flooded  by 

reservoir  and 

reservoir  clearing 

Power  plant 

.Additional  ccst 

for  flood  control 

features 

Total  coet 

220 
320 
420 
520 
620 

$7,840,000 
16.370,000 
31,190.000 
54,370,000 
87,710,000 

$14„520,000 
17,12(»,00() 
23,610,000 
33,770,000 
41,560,000 

§19,810.000 
24.670,()(KI 
24,980,000 
28,020,000 
31,060,000 

(N'o  flood  control) 

<1, 100,000 

2?0,000 

0 

0 

$42,170,000 

59  2(i()  000 

80,000.000 

116,160,000 

160,330,000 

DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  51 

DETAIL  COST   ESTIMATE   OF  KENNETT  RESERVOIR 
AND  POWER  PLANT. 

Height  of  dam,   420  feet. 

Reservoir    capacity,    2,94  0,000    aore-feet. 

Capacity  of  overflow  spillway,   125,000  second-feet. 

Capacity  of  flood  control   and    irrigation   outlets,    125,000   second-feet. 

Installed   capacity    of   power   plant,    400,000    k.v.a. 

Dam  and  Reservoir — 

Exploration   and   core   drilling $30,000 

Diversion  of  river  during  construction  by  coffer  dams  and  power  tunnels      270,000 

Clearing  of  reservoir  site,  23,000  acres  at  $20 460,000 

Excavation  for  dam  and  spillways: 

Below  river  level,  24,000  cubic  yards  at  $4 $96,000 

Above  river  level,  1,050,000  cubic  yards  at  $1.50 1,575,000 

Mass  concrete  2,650,000  cubic  yards  at  $7 18,550,000 

Reinforced  concrete,  20.000  cubic  yards  at  $12.50  to  $24 265,000 

Drum  gates,  2,500,000  lbs.  at  $0.10 250,000 

Backfill,  120,000  cubic  yards  at  $1.25 150,000 

Sealing   foundation   and   drainage : 60,000 

20,946,000 

Lands  and  improvements  flooded 14,960,000 

Miscellaneous  : 

Gravel  spur  railroad $25,000 

Construction  and  permanent  camps 320,000 

345,000 

Flood  control  and  irrigation  outlets : 

Trash  racks  and  steel  lining,   3,555,000  lbs.  at  $0.083 $311,000 

Sluice  gates,  2  at  $17,000 34,000 

21  at  12,000 252,000 

Balanced  needle  valves,   500,000  lbs.  at  $0.28 140,000 

Excavation  for  channel : 

Below  river  level,  23,000  cubic  yards  at  $4 92,000 

Above  river  channel,  58,000  cubic  yards  at  $1.50 87,000 

Concrete  channel  lining,  19,000  cu.  yds.  at  $7  and  $12.50  158,000 

1,074,000 

Subtotal,  dam  and  reservoir $38,085,000 

Contingencies    5,713  000 

Administration   and    engineering 3,808,000 

Interest  during  construction 7,414,000 

Total  cost  of  dam  and  reservoir $55,020,000 

Power  Plant — 

Gate  Towers : 

Concrete,  2000  cubic  yards  at  $12.50  and  $24 $43,000 

Trash  racks,  620,000  lbs.  at  $0.08| 54,000 

Balanced  valves,  666,000  lbs.  at  $0.20 133,000 

$230,000 

Penstocks : 

Tunnel   excavation,   81,000   cubic  yards  at   $6 $486,000 

47,000  cubic  yards  at  $8.50 399,000 

Concrete  tunnel  lining,  36,000  cubic  yards  at  $20 720,000 

Temporary   tunnel    timbering 97,000 

Steel   reinforcing  in   lining,   390,000   lbs.   at   $0.053 22,000 

Steel  penstock  pipes,  20,620,000  lbs.  at  $0.083 1,804,000 

Concrete  pipe  cradles,  550  cubic  yards  at  $12.50 7,000 

3,535,000 

Building  and  equipment,  400,000  k.v.a.  at   $35 14,000,000 

Keswick    afterbay 500,000 

Subtotal,  power  plant  and  afterbay $18,265,000 

Contingencies    2,740,000 

Administration    and    engineering 1,827,000 

Interest   during   construction 2,148,000 

Total  cost  of  power  plant  and  afterbay $24,980,000 

I 
Grand  Total  Cost  of  Dam,  Reservoir,  Power  Plant  and  Afterbay $80,000,000 

Dam  height  selected  for  "Coordinated   Plan." 

The  most  desirable  capacity  of  the  Keiinett  reservoir  as  a  unit  of  the 
"Coordinated  Plan"  is  not  subject  to  an  exact  analysis.     Necessarily, 


52 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


PLATE  D 


Cost  per   acre  foo 


Cost   per  kilowatt  in  dollars 


E 

ID 


1- 
o 


•St 

r 


1200 


Secondary  power - 
operating  primarily 
■for  irrigation 


Primary  and  secondary  power 
operating  primarily  for 
'eneration  of  power 


-300 


Cost  of  Reservoir 
AND  Power  Plant 
PER  Kilowatt  of 
Average  Power  Output 


Cost  per  acre  foot  in  dollars 


Prior  rights  deducted 


60 


ior  rights  not  deducted 


Cost  of  Reservoir 

PER  Acre  Foot  of 

Seasonal  Irrigation  Yield 


Cost  per  acre  foot  in  dollars 


300 


i 


Cost  of  Reservoir  per 

Acre  Foot  Increase  in 

Seasonal  Irrigation  Yield 


Cost  of  Reservoir  Capacity  and  Unit  Yield  of 
Water  and  Power  from  Kennett  Reservoir 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  53 

it  must  bear  some  relation  to  the  size  of  the  other  units  of  the  plan  and 
to  their  cost.  Since  the  main  Sacramento  is  the  largest  of  the  several 
tributaries  and  tlie  Kennett  reservoir  offers  the  least  expensive  storage 
facilities,  this  unit  should  be  large.  It  would  be  economic  to  develop 
at  Kennett  the  largest  possible  part  of  the  total  water  required  for 
the  purposes  of  the  plan.  The  plan  proposes  to  develop  the  water 
needed  for  future  irrigation  and  domestic  use  on  the  floor  of  the 
Sacramento  Valley  togetlier  witli  a  surplus  for  navigation  and  salt 
water  control.  Half  or  more  of  this  surplus,  after  use  for  navigation  in 
the  Sacramento  Kiver,  would  be  diverted  into  the  San  Joaquin  Valley 
for  relief  of  tlu'ii'  deficient  local  supplies.  Therefore,  the  total  water 
required  by  the  plan  is  much  dependent  upon  the  length  of  the  period 
for  whicli  pf-ovision  should  be  made  at  this  time.  This  in  turn  would 
vary  with  the  costs.  In  conclusion,  therefore,  it  would  seem  that  the 
desirable  size  of  the  Kennett  reservoir  in  the  "Coordinated  Plan"  is 
the  one  of  greatest  capacity  commensurate  with  reasonable  production 
costs. 

Plate  D,  "Cost  of  Reservoir  Capacity  and  Unit  Yield  of  Water  and 
Power  from  Kennett  Reservoir,"  sets  forth  the  costs  of  producing  water 
and  power  at  the  Kennett  reservoir.  The  upper  left  graph  on  this 
plate  shows  the  average  cost  of  an  acre-foot  of  storage  behind  all  heights 
of  dam.  It  uuiy  be  noted  that  storage  is  costly  for  low  heights.  At 
220  feet,  it  is  $64  per  acre-foot.  It  decreases  sharply  to  $24  per  acre- 
foot  at  a  height  of  850  feet.  For  greater  heights  it  gradually  decreases 
to  $12  for  a  dam  (320  feet  high.  These  costs  are  for  a  reservoir  com- 
plete for  irrigation  use.  They  do  not  include  the  cost  of  a  power 
plant  or  of  flood  control  features. 

The  upper  right  graph  shows  the  average  cost  of  an  acre-foot  of 
seasonal  irrigation  yield  for  all  heights  of  dam  with  the  reservoir 
similarly  equipped.  Two  lines  are  shown  on  the  graph.  The  full  line 
is  the  cost  per  acre-foot  of  yield  after  the  estimated  prior  rights  below 
the  dam  site  are  deducted  from  the  Avater  supply.  The  dashed  line  is 
tlie  average  cost  of  equalizing  all  water,  including  that  passed  for  prior 
rights  below  the  dam  site.  Both  curves  indicate  that  a  dam  height  of 
420  feet  would  have  the  largest  capacity  commensurate  with  reasonable 
costs  of  water  production.  The  cost  at  this  height  would  be  $19  per 
acre-foot  of  new  water  equalized  for  irrigation  use.  For  greater  heights, 
as  well  as  for  heights  more  than  50  feet  lower,  the  average  cost  per 
acre-foot  of  yield  increases  substantially.  The  rates  at  which  these 
costs  increase  for  a  change  in  height  at  the  several  heights  of  dam  are 
shown  on  the  lower  right  graph.  The  curves  on  this  graph  show  the 
cost  of  each  additional  acre-foot  of  yield  that  would  be  gained  by 
slightly  raising  the  dam.  It  may  be  noticed  that  for  heights  greater 
than  400  feet  the  unit  increase  in  yield  gained  by  raising  the  dam 
enlarges  rapidly  in  cost.  At  420  feet  height  of  dam  the  cost  of  an 
additional  unit  of  supply  is  $19  per  acre-foot.  This  is  identical  with 
the  average  cost  of  the  entire  new  supply  at  this  height  of  dam.  There- 
fore, as  an  irrigation  reservoir,  tlu^  economic  heigiit,  so  far  as  produc- 
tion costs  are  coucenied,  is  420  feet. 

The  graph  in  the  lower  left  corner,  Plate  D,  delineates  the  cost  per 
kilowatt  of  average  power  output  for  a  reservoir  equipped  to  generate 
power.     These  costs  include  the  reservoir  and  power  plant,  with   all 


54  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

appurtenances,  but  do  not  include  flood  control  features.  Two  curves 
are  shown.  Tlie  dashed-line  curve  indicates-  the  cost  of  average  output 
of  both  primary  and  secondary  power  wlien  operating  primarily  for 
power  generation.  The  full-line  curve  indicates  the  cost  of  average 
output  when  operating  for  ultimate  irrigation  needs.  This  curve  shows 
a  sliglitly  less  cost  for  low  heights  of  dam  than  the  one  representing 
operation  i)rimarily  for  power  generation.  In  tlie  latter  case  the  full 
installation  is  not  employed  in  generating  power  when  Avater  is  avail- 
able, tlie  load  factor  being  0.75,  while  in  tlie  first  instance  it  is.  This 
gives  a  slightly  greater  total  output  and  hence  the  sliglitly  less  unit 
cost  of  production  for  low  heights  of  dam  operating  primarily  for 
irrigation. 

Both  curves  indicate  that  about  320-foot  height  of  dam  is  most  advan- 
tageous so  far  as  power  production  is  concerned  if  primarj''  and  second- 
ary power  have  the  same  value.  Since  primary  power  has  a  greater 
value  than  secondary,  and  the  proportion  of  primary  to  secondary 
power  output  increases  rapidly  with  higher  dams  when  operating  pri- 
marily for  power  generation,  the  true  economic  height  so  far  as  power 
production  is  concerned  is  greater  than  320  feet.  At  420  feet  the  cost 
is  $500  per  kilowatt  average  production,  about  17  per  cent  greater  than 
the  cost  at  a  height  of  320  feet,  but  the  j)roportion  of  primary  power 
is  20  per  cent  larger.  The  true  economic  height  would,  therefore, 
approach  420  feet,  according  to  the  relative  values  assigned  to  primary 
and  secondary  power.  The  cost  does  not  increase  very  rapidly  with 
greater  dam  heights  when  operating  primarily  for  power  generation. 
At  a  620-foot  height,  the  cost  is  $644  per  kilowatt.  At  the  same  height, 
the  cost  operating  primarily  for  irrigation  mounts  to  $1,000  per 
kilowatt. 

The  studies  on  the  control  of  floods  b}^  reservoirs  indicate  that  the 
greatest  space  needed  for  detention  of  flood  flows  at  the  Kennett  reser- 
voir is  454,000  acre-feet.  They  also  indicate  that  this  is  too  large 
a  fraction  of  the  total  capacity  of  the  reservoir  behind  dams  much  less 
than  420  feet  in  height  for  flood  control  to  harmonize  with  the  produc- 
tion of  water  and  power.  Since  the  420-foot  height  is  most  economical 
for  water  production,  practically  so  for  power  production  and  favor- 
able for  flood  control,  it  Ava.s  selected  as  the  initial  dam  height  for  the 
Kennett  reservoir  in  the  "Coordinated  Plan." 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  55 


CHAPTER  IV. 


GEOLOGY  OF  KENNETT  DAM  SITE. 

Diamond    drill    explorations. 

Because  of  tlie  importance  of  the  Keunett  reservoir  to  any  scheme 
for  developinjz:  tlie  surplus  waters  of  the  Sacramento  drainage  basin, 
the  site  Avas  explored  in  1924-25  with  a  diamond  drill.  Prof.  George 
D.  Louderback,  geologist  of  the  University  of  California,  advised  in 
this  work.  The  site  was  drilled  Avith  both  vertical  and  inclined  holes 
to  ascertain  the  presence  of  zones  of  weakness,  if  any  should  exist  in 
the  massive  formation  at  the  dam  site.  In  all,  4299  lineal  feet  of  hole 
were  drilled,  8  vertical  holes  aggregating  1112  feet  in  length,  and  12 
inclined  holes  totaling  3187  feet  in  length.  The  core  saved  was  45 
per  cent  of  the  entire  length  of  the  holes  drilled.  All  cores  have 
been  preserved. 

This  series  of  holes  pierced  the  surface  covering  of  the  dam  site  to 
a  general  depth  of  151  feet  below  the  ground  surface.  At  from  10  to 
]08  feet  below  the  surface  a  firm,  greenish-gray  rock  was  encountered 
in  every  hole.  The  cores  show  the  seams  and  crevices  of  this  underlj^ng 
rock  to  be  unusually  tightly  filled  by  secondary  depositions  of  quartz 
or  calcite,  sometimes  associated  with  other  minerals.  The  overlying 
material  was  found  to  be  badly  weathered.  Narrow  belts  of  badly 
weathered  material  extend  to  depths  as  great  as  100  feet.  As  shown  by 
the  drill  cores  and  surface  indications,  the  depth  to  which  this  weath- 
ered material  will  have  to  be  removed  in  constructing  a  high  dam 
varies  from  a  few  feet  in  a  belt  five  or  six  hundred  feet  wide  along  the 
gorge  to  about  108  feet  on  a  very  limited  area  at  the  deepest  point  on 
the  right  abutment.  In  general,  less  stripping  will  be  required  on  the 
left  abutment  than  on  the  right.  Here  the  maximum  depth  will  be 
about  60  feet.  The  average  depth  of  stripping  to  uncover  firm  founda- 
tions over  the  entire  dam  site  is  estimated  to  be  45  feet. 

The  location  of  the  diamond  drill  holes  is  shown  on  Plate  E,  "Loca- 
tion of  Diamond  Drill  Borings  at  Kennett  Dam  Site."  The  holes  are 
plotted  on  this  plate,  showing  their  relative  positions  on  cross-sections 
of  the  canyon.  Their  horizontal  positions  are  spotted  on  a  topographic 
map  of  the  dam  site,  also  contained  on  this  plate.  A  complete  log  of 
the  diamond  drill  borings  is  delineated  on  Plate  F,  "Log  of  Diamond 
Drill  Borings  at  Kennett  Dam  Site." 

Report  of  Prof.  George   D.   Louderback,  Geologist. 

Based  ujion  a  field  examination  of  the  surrounding  terrain,  a  study 
of  the  drill  coi-es,  the  driller's  logs,  field  engineer's  notes,  and  maps. 
Prof.  George  D.  Louderback  of  the  University  of  California  rendered 
the  following  report: 


56  WATER  KESOUKCES  OF   CALIFORNIA. 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

GEOLOGICAL  SCIENCES 

BERKELEY 

tleorgo  D.  Louderljack, 
103  Bacon  Hall. 

December  28,  1926. 
State  Engineer, 
Department  of  Public  Works, 
Sacramento,  Cal. 

Geologic  Fcdho-cs  of  Kodh  N  Dmn  Site. 
Dear  Sir: 

The  following  report  is  the  result  of  a  study  in  the  field  of  the  imme- 
diate area  of  the  Kennett  dam  site,  and  tlie  examination  of  a  series  of 
core  samples  taken  from  a  series  of  bore  lioles  along  and  near  the  pro- 
j)()sed  location  of  the  dam,  and  representing  a  total  of  4299  feet  of  sub- 
surface exploration. 

The  Andesitic  Series. 

By  far  the  greater  part  of  the  rocks  encountered  represent  an  old 
volcanic  series  made  up  originally  of  a  succession  of  lava  flows,  and 
the  products  of  explosive  eru})tions  (tuffs  and  agglomerates).  p]arth 
movements  have  turned  these  rocks  uj)  into  attitudes  not  far  from 
vertical  so  that  on  traversing  tlie  ])i'oposed  line  of  the  dam,  one  is 
crossing  in  almost  the  shortest  possible  distance,  the  successive  mem- 
bers of  tlie  series.  While  tlie  different  layers  originally  varied  in  texture 
and  in  chemical  composition,  they  appear  to  belong  to  tlie  same  gen- 
eral rock  group — pyroxene  andesite.  This  series  has  been  determined 
by  ]\Ir.  Diller  of  the  U.  S.  Geological  Survey  to  be  pre-Devonian  in  age, 
and  he  named  it  the  "Copley  ]\Ietaandesite." 

xVll  of  the  rocks  of  the  Copley  group  have  undergone  alteration  to  a 
greater  or  less  extent.  There  has  been  a  widespread  alteration  of  the 
ferro-magnesian  constituents  (chiefly  pyroxene)  to  chlorite.  This  has 
given  the  umveathered  ])arts  of  the  rocks  a  light  or  dark  green  color, 
dependent  largely  on  the  amount  of  chlorite  present,  and  they  may  all 
properly  be  referred  to  as  greenstones.  Much  of  the  feldspar  has  been 
changed  to  sericitic  products  with  the  concomitant  development  of  epi- 
dote  or  calcite.  During  the  alteration  a  certain  amount  of  secondary 
quart/,  also  developed.  These  forms  of  alteration  are  more  or  less 
variable,  sometimes  much  of  the  original  minerals  remaining,  some- 
times all  of  the  original  minerals  being  replaced  by  alteration  products. 
A  high  (h^vclopmcnt  of  cpidote  gives  the  rock  the  peculiar  greenish 
yellow  tiiil  characteristic  of  certain  forms  of  that  mineral. 

Another  form  of  alteration  that  is  found  in  streaks  or  belts,  is  the 
development  of  schistosity  by  recryslallization  under  lateral  pressure 
(stress).  In  some  places  this  is  developed  along  minor  shear  lines 
closel.v  spaced,  the  rock  substance  between  not  partaking  of  the  schi.stose 
structure.  In  the  core  samples  from  the  bore  holes,  rock  thus  altered, 
breaks  into  short  s(^etions  with  rathei'  lustrous  surfaces  due  to  the  small 


'- 

' 

•I  d 

y 


POOj 


TB^S  a^JOH   iiinn^nini!  Dur 


ROP' 


> 

TIC 

1 

V 

^ 

1 

i   I 


■--T  ni  r1^ 


on^^ 


PLATE  E 


>^t 


HOLE  No.  2D 


pltrsiCAL 
SCIENCES 
LIBRARY 

HOLE  N02E 

M    ELEV     795  2 


V  ERTICAL  HOLES 


HOLE  No  6 


ELEV.  7U.4 


.a.Tjiis-.vxax 


I  HOLE  No.  7 

t*  ELEV    7B9.e 


HOLE  No.  8 

»1    ELEV    861  S 


HOLE  No.  2C 

ELEV,  802  3 


HOLE  No.  3  HOLE  NO.  3A 

H    ELEV.  787.6  ••    ELEV.   769  7 

'" "~"'  '-.f?iS.si-.s 


..-s;-.il.-ii.-j"r-?ii=- 


0) 
hi 

_l 
O 

I 

Q 
Ui 
Z 

_l 

u 

z 


o 

z 

Ul 

_J 
0 

I 


u 
m 

6  : 

Z    s 


15   i]! 


iil! 


liii  I 
Mi!. 


•ill  Mii ' 


'I  in.  i;!  iiiP  i'- 


Inh'lli'UiiJlPi 


3EO10 


m 
p) 

d  3 

z  s 

uj  i 

_1  n! 


I 

1        111 


111 


li'lli 

ill 


HI;! 
{"if 


I 
I 


'it 


ni 


=    1  I??    i 

fc  ii  p  1 
«   ft  i]tl  i 


la  •!' 


ilia 

111  M 


SMK 


o 

z 

111 

_1 

o 

I 


-  Ihii 
=  fill! 


flil! 


Ii 

■Ipli 
Gfi; 


H 

u 

ill 


I'! 


If 
I' 

Isi 


Ii    III 


I 


I 


I  II 


Hi 


■Hi 


< 

IS 

d  ; 

Z    K 
UJ    i 


m 

iliu 


u 

I 


PS 


i 


i 


30 


i 

i 


I 


ill 


iliii] 

i  i  liA 

j  I-  I  i  iJ 

I  i!  1  lifi 


j  Hiliiiii 

'  fi  1 1 1  i  I  n 


d    J'iSl  fflES 


(J) 
Ul 

_l 

o 

I 

Q 
LU 

z 
_I 
u 

z 


< 

d 

z 

LJ 

_J 

o 

I 


CD 
CD 

6 

z 

llJ 

_l 

o 

I 


0 

z 


?  ^[ 


m 

b 

z 

iij 
_i 
0 

I 


< 

CM 

d 

z 
111 

_1 
0 

I 


HI 


iiiii 
i  j|  111 

1  i  111 


;      {- 

i.SU 

1      i 

^«f 

:      \ 

■      li~. 

i  i 

lllll 

i'  ll 

H  i  i 


i 


0   s 
z   = 

St 


< 

00 

d 

z 


iliir 
ill!! 
m 


PLATE  F 


ill 

:1S 


li    i: 


illill 


1 1 1!  M  a  If 


!  iil 


I  # 


laaaci] 


ijl 

a    * 

J'; 

;)i 

'       li 

-.; 

^        h 

=  1 

■n    H 

m 
m 

ill 


ill 


lasaaa 


1  i* 


li!  !l  li  ? 
1 II.  i  111  i 


-i^iaaiaa^aaaiajciaiaEiOBQicioiiiaaiEaiaic 


LOG  OF  DIAMOND  DRILL  BORINGS 

■■■'l/SJCAL 
iCIENCES 


AT  KENNETT  DAM  SITE 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  57 

new  crystals  being  arranyod  in  planes.  In  certain  belts  the  whole  rock 
has  been  given  a  marked  parallel  structure  and  may  be  called  a  schist 
(chloritic  scliist  or  greenstone  schist).  ]\Iany  of  the  layers  that  do 
not  sliow  either  of  the  al)ove  phenomena,  show  a  eei'tain  general 
parallelism  of  constituents,  in  part  tlue  to  original  flow  structure,  in 
part  developed  under  lateral  compression.  This  is  brought  out  best 
bv  weatliering  aiul  gives  tlie  flakv  appearance  called  by  the  drillers 
"'shale." 

In  texture  the  andesites  originally  varied  from  t]u)se  witli  a  glassy 
groundmass,  through  those  with  fluidal  mierocrystalline  groundmass 
to  those  of  very  fine  crystalline,  in  ])art  granular,  intersertal  texture 
and  without  recognizable  flow  structure.  All  the  glasses  have  of  course 
been  devitrified.  Some  of  the  flows  are  of  fine  uniform  grain  and 
dense.  Mhile  some  carry  in  the  mierocrystalline  or  apluiuitic  ground- 
mass  disseminated  visible  crystals  (phenocrysts)  of  feldspar,  less  fre- 
quently pyroxene,  or  both.  A  number  of  the  flows  and  most  of  the 
fragments  of  the  fragmental  layers  were  originally  more  or  less 
charged  with  steam  holes  (vesicular  structure)  but  these  have  every- 
where been  tilled  by  secondary  deposition,  usually  with  quartz,  some- 
times with  calcite,  both  often  being  associated  with  chlorite  or  other 
minerals.  Sometimes  in  the  zone  of  weathering,  this  secondary  calcite 
has  been  leached  out,  leaving  the  rock  with  empty  roundish  holes. 

In  the  unweathered  portions  of  the  rocks,  not  only  are  the  steam 
holes  filled  with  mineral  matter,  but  the  original  spaces  between  the 
grains  of  the  fragmental  rocks  have  been  obliterated  by  compression 
and  deposition,  a  very  fortunate  alteration  for  the  rocks  of  a  dam 
site,  as  originally  they  were  probably  very  porous. 

Veining  is  very  common  in  the  unweathered  samples.  Thin  stringers 
up  to  veins  several  inches  across  have  been  observed.  Sueli  veining 
is  rather  widespread  but  some  belts  are  much  more  heavily  veined 
than  others.  The  commonest  vein  minerals  are  quartz  and  calcite. 
Each  may  occur  alone,  or  both  may  appear  in  the  same  vein.  The 
(piartz  may  be  associated  with  epidote.  Scattered  grains,  groups  of 
grains,  and  druses  of  pyrite  are  very  common  throughout  the  series. 
These  generally  weather  to  limonite  in  the  oxidation  zone.  A  few 
rotten  streaks  have  been  found  where  a  marked  red  color  prevails. 
These  are  probably  the  result  of  the  oxidation  of  zones  of  concentrated 
pyrite. 

Other  Kocks. 

Aside  from  the  various  facies  of  the  andesitic  series  above  described, 
the  only  other  rocks  found  were  occasional  dikes  of  younger  intrusive 
igneous  rocks,  as  follows : 

In  Hole  1  at  about  80  feet,  a  medium  grained  (puirtz  diorite. 
Tn  Hole  1  between   180  and   187   feet   occurs   a   more  basic   quartz 
diorite. 

Tn  Hole  1  21G  feet,  a  dacite  porphyry. 
Tn  Hole  2A  about  74  feet,  a  dacite  porphvry. 
In  Hole  (JA  '.i()-o\)  feet,  diabase  or  augite-dioi-ite. 
In  Hole  7A  198-246  feet,  dacite  porpiiyry. 


58  water  resources  of  california. 

General  Distribution  of  Rock  Types. 

On  tlie  west  side  at,  or  near,  the  Sacramento  River,  the  rock  is  an 
ag:g:lonierate.  As  there  is  little  soil,  and  the  exposed  rocks  are  fairly 
fresli,  tlie  structure  is  easily  observed.  The  andesite  fra«j:ments  lie  in 
a  green  base  in  which  the  original  open  pores  have  evidently  been 
obliterated  by  compression  and  mineral  reorganization. 

At  about  750-755  feet  in  elevation,  a  fine  grained  rock  comes  in, 
tliat  lias  become  more  or  less  .schisto.se  and  in  part  may  be  called  chlorite 
schist.  It  does  not  stand  out  in  i)rominent  outcrops  above  the  soil  as 
does  tlie  agglomerate. 

Near  Hole  3  and  the  triangulation  .station  occurs  an  amygdaloidal 
andesite. 

Commencing  at  the  road  and  running  up  to  860-870  feet  in  eleva- 
tion, the  exposures  are  mostly  dull  ochreous  friable  "shaly"  meta- 
andesites,  which  are  followed  by  more  amygdaloidal  andesites  rather 
badly  Aveatliered. 

At  about  980  feet  greenstone  'schists  are  again  encountered,  followed 
in  the  high  shoulder  at  1000  to  1200  feet  by  rocks  showing  rather 
prominent  outcrops  of  agglomerate  weathering  out  like  the  ' '  gravestone- 
slates"  of  the  foothill  belt  of  the  Sierra  Nevada.  Some  of  the  project- 
ing masses  are  25-30  feet  higli. 

The  quartz  diorite  and  dacite  porphyry  dikes  were  not  observed  on 
the  surface  but  found  in  the  drill  cores. 

To  the  east  of  the  river  the  rocks  are  at  first  well  exposed  and  with 
little  soil.  Distinct  porphyritic  and  amygdaloidal  forms  of  andesite 
occur,  and  near  the  river,  a  band  of  chlorite  schist.  Partlier  up  from 
the  river  the  rocks  are  more  soil-and-vegetation-covered  than  on  the 
west  side,  and  the  types  are  harder  to  follow,  although  occasional  out- 
crops occur.  As  one  goes  up,  liowever,  fragmental  types  become  more 
and  more  dominant,  to  the  end  of  the  surveyed  section. 

A  thick  diabase  (or  augite  diorite)  dike  was  observed  both  at  the 
surface  and  in  core  samples,  and  also,  one  of  dacite-porphyry. 

Physical  Characteristics  of  the  Rocks. 

In  the  unweathered  state  most  of  the  rocks  of  the  dam  site  zone  are 
firm  and  their  textures  tight.  The  only  slightly  schistose  types  and 
the  massive  types,  which  togetlier  make  up  the  greater  part  of  the 
section  are  strong  and  tough.  The  more  schistose,  especially  the  best 
developed  chlorite  schists  are  comparatively  weak,  but  held  firmly 
between  the  stronger  layers,  are  sufficiently  resi.stant  for  dam  purposes, 
considering  the  thickness  that  will  be  involved.  There  are  no  readily 
permeable,  or  typical  water-bearing  strata  in  the  series. 

As  the  series  is  built  up  of  layers  which  have  been  tilted  up  to  not 
far  from  vertical  (usually  20"^  or  less),  tliese  layers  lie  in  belts,  and 
these  belts  run  in  general  rouglily  parallel  to  the  Sacramento  River. 
On  the  high  shoulder  (1200  feet  in  elevation)  in  the  west  they  strike 
N.  40°  E. ;  at  about  1000  feet  in  elevation,  N.  46°  E. ;  at  930  feet,  about 
N.  50°  E. ;  near  the  river,  N.  15°  E.  to  N.  18°  E.  Going  north  from  the 
line  of  drill  holes  the  strike  turns  more  to  the  east,  and  carries  tlie 
formations  on  the  west  side  across  the  river.  Values  of  N.  53°  E.  and 
N.  60°  E.  were  obtained  on  this  turn. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  59 


This  structure  is  not  as  favorable  as  one  at  right  angles  to  the  river 
would  be,  as  the  lines  of  the  layers  and  of  shearing  are  in  general 
transverse  to  the  dam  and  tlie  water  pressure  is  exerted  along  these 
lines.  However,  the  filling  of  tlie  seams  and  crevices  by  secondar}^ 
deposition  makes  leakage  along  these  structural  planes  improbable 
below  the  weathered  zone. 

Tlie  effect  of  the  structure  is  very  noticeable  near  the  surface  espe- 
cially on  the  west  side  where  the  rock  is  weatliered  more  deeply  than 
on  the  east  side,  as  for  example  about  Hole  2  rotten  and  friable  streaks 
are  shown  down  to  a  depth  of  50  feet  and  the  rock  is  weathered  and 
oxidized  to  a  deptli  of  60  to  70  feet.  Such  belts  run  parallel  or  roughly 
parallel  to  the  strike. 

These  liighly  oxidized  and  weathered  streaks  are  the  weakest  parts 
of  the  -whole  belt.  Fortunately  their  extent  is  limited  and  they  may 
readily  be  recognized  by  their  color,  and  the  ease  by  which  they  can 
be  dug  or  picked  out  in  a  crumbling  mass.  They  are  both  physically 
weak  and  subject  to  percolation.  In  most  places  they  are  shallow,  and 
near  the  river,  where  the  water  pressure  would  be  greatest,  the  erosion 
is  too  recent  for  such  weathered  products  to  have  formed.  This  mate- 
rial should  all  be  removed  in  stripping  the  dam  site. 

Conclusions. 

In  my  opinion  the  geological  and  topographic  conditions  combine 
to  produce  a  very  satisfactory  dam  site.  The  massive  spurs  that 
extend  out  toward  the  river,  are  underlain  by  firm  rock,  the  original 
molar  spaces  of  which  have  been  closed  by  pressure  and  mineral  deposi- 
tion and  offer  good  foundations  for  a  dam. 

A  certain  amount  of  percolation  may  take  place  along  shear  zones 
and  other  structure  lines  in  the  formation,  but  as  far  as  the  firm, 
unweathered  rock  is  concerned,  it  will  probably  be  negligible.  Care 
will  have  to  be  used  in  the  handling  of  the  badly  weathered  belts,  and 
zones  of  shear  as  indicated  above,  but  tliere  is  no  reason  to  believe  that 
any  difficulty  from  this  source  can  not  be  overcome  by  reasonable  pre- 
cautions. The  desirable  depth  of  stripping  will  be  irregular  over  the 
dam  site,  varying  from  a  minimum  of  a  few  feet  in  a  belt  250  to  300 
feet  on  either  side  of  the  stream  clianncl  to  a  maximum  of  108  feet  on 
a  very  limited  area  on  the  right  abutment  but  in  general  it  will  range 
from  10  to  50  feet. 

The  location  of  tlie  Kennett  dam  as  proposed  in  the  engineering 
report  is  the  most  suitable  one  in  the  vicinity  of  Kennett. 

Yours  very  sincerely, 


CHAPTER  V. 


REPORT  ON  IRON  CANYON  PROJECT— CALIFORNIA 

by 

Walker  R.  Young 
Engineer,  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Reclamation. 

OCTOBER,  1925. 


United  States  Department  of  the  Interior 

Bureau  of  Reclamation 

in  cooperation  with 

California  State  Department  of  Public  Works 

Division  of  Engineering  and  Irrigation 

and 

Sacramento  Valley  Development  Association. 


LETTER    OF    TRANSMITTAL. 


Berkeley,   Califoniiu, 
October  31,  1925. 
From  :       "Walker  R.  Young,  Engineer, 

To :  Chief  Engineer,  Denver,  Colorado. 

Subject :  Report  upon  Iron  Canyon  Project  in  Sacramento  Valley,  California. 

1.  Transmitted  herewith  is  report  upon  investigations  made  of  the  Iron  Canyon 
project  as  provided  for  in  the  Cooperative  Agreement  of  January  26,  1924,  between 
the  United  States  Department  of  the  Interior ;  the  Department  of  Public  Works, 
Division  of  Engineering  and  Irrigation  of  the  State  of  California ;  and  the  Sacramento 
Valley  Development  Association. 

2.  Many  courtesies  have  been  extended  by  those  with  whom  the  writer  and  his 
associates  have  come  in  contact  in  the  prosecution  of  the  work.  The  writer  wishes 
to  express  his  sincere  appreciation  of  these  courtesies,  and  to  acknowledge  the  very 
valuable  assistance  given,  particularly  by  Mr.  Wm.  Durbrow,  President,  Glenn-Colusa 
Irrigation  .District ;  Mr.  Frank  Adams,  Professor  of  Irrigation  Investigations  and 
Practice,  University  of  California  ;  and  Mr.  R.  C.  E.  Weber,  Superintendent  of  the 
Orland  Project. 

3.  In  connection  with  the  preparation  of  material  for  the  report,  credit  is  due 
Mr.  W.  A.  Perkins,  Associate  Hydraulic  Engineer,  Division  of  Engineering  and  Irriga- 
tion, State  Department  of  Public  Works,  who  made  the  principal  office  studies,  and 
to  Mr.  Paul  A.  Jones,  Assistant  Engineer,  of  this  Bureau,  who  had  charge  of  all 
field  work  and  of  the  preparation  of  designs  and  estimates  for  the  canal  system. 

4.  Whether  the  best  project  to  be  found  in  the  Sacramento  Valley,  which  may  be 
watered  from  Iron  Canyon  reservoir,  has  been  selected  for  investigation  is  doubtful. 
The  studies  made  have  therefore  been  presented  in  considerable  detail  in  order  that 
duplication  of  work  may  be  avoided  in  future  investigations.  Appendix  A  *  accom- 
panies three  copies  of  the  report  only  as  the  supply  has  been  exhausted. 

(Signed)     Walker  R.  Young, 
Engineer,  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Reclamation. 


*  Not  included  in  printed  report,  to  save  space.     Copy  on  file  at  office  of  Division 
of   Engineering   and    Irrigation    and    may    be    consulted    there. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


Page 

LETTER  OF  TRANSMITTAL 62 

LIST  OF  EXHIBITS 66 

LIST  OF  TABLES 67 

LIST  OF  PRELIMINARY  ESTIMATES 68 

LIST  OF  APPENDICES 68 

LIST  OF  PHOTOGRAPHS 68 

LIST  OF  PLATES 68 

SYNOPSIS— 

Project  considered 70 

Purpose  of  investigation 70 

Authority  for  inv-estigation 70 

Cooperation  received 70 

Office  work 71 

Field  work 71 

Cost  of  investigation 71 

Data  filed 71 

SUMMARY  OF  RESULTS— 

Duty  of  water 72 

Water  supply 72 

Power 72 

Distribution  system 73 

Project  drainage 73 

Cost  analysis,  assuming  noninterest  bearing  money 74 

Estimated   project  costs,  assuming  noninterest  bearing  money,  and  repayment  of  construction 

costs  in  20  years 74 

(a)  Gross  cost 74 

(b)  Net  cost 75 

(c)  Comparison  of  net  costs  per  acre 75 

(d)  Deferred  charges 75 

Estimated  project  cost,  assuming  that  storage  and  power  features  are  constructed  with 

interest  bearing  money 75 

CONCLUSIONS 77 

RECOMMENDATION 78 

BODY  OF  REPORT. 

KEY  TO  PROJECT  MAP 79 

INTRODUCTION— 

Early  investigations 80 

1914  report 80 

1920  report 80 

1925  report 81 

GENERAL  DESCRIPTION— 

Sacramento  Valley 81 

Project  considered 81 

Lands 82 

Drainage 82 

Timber 82 

Crops 82 

Present  irrigation 82 

Growing  season 82 

Transportation  facilities  and  markets 82 

Cities  and  towns 83 

Industries 83 

SURVEYS— 

Scope  of  work '. 83 

Lines  surveyed 83 

Methods  used 84 

Level  control 84 

Topographic  surveys 85 

PROJECT  AREA— 

Gravity  and  pumping  areas 85 

East  side  area 85 


64  CONTENTS. 

PROJECT  AREA— Continued.  Pago 

Lands  within  proposed  project  now  irrigated g,") 

Limiting  eonditions 86 

Irrigable  and  assessed  area ,S6 

Orland  project — California St; 

SOIL  CLASSIFICATION— 

Studies  made g7 

Rice  lands 87 

DUTY  OF  WATER— 

Basis  of  assumed  duty 88 

Assumed  duty 89 

Supporting  data 90 

Comparison  with  other  projects 92 

Rainfall 92 

Project  development 92 

Water  requirements 93 

CANAL  LOSSES  AND  WASTE— 

Transportation  losses 95 

Waste 95 

Disposition  of  waste  water 95 

Irrigation  methods 95 

Canal  designed  for  irrigation  peak 95 

WATER  SUPPLY— 

Source 96 

Run-off 96 

Basis  of  estimated  supply 97 

Monthly  distribution 97 

Iron  Canyon  project  fiUngs 97 

Prior  rights 98 

Amount  of  water  assumed  to  supply  prior  rights 99 

Relation  of  run-off  and  assumed  irrigation  requirements 100 

Evaporation  from  reservoir 100 

Water  to  supply  demands  of  irrigation  and  power  development  at  the  storage  dam 101 

Reservoir  draft  suggested  as  most  practicable 104 

Irrigation  shortages 105 

Reservoir  operation 105 

Auxiliary  water  supply 105 

Return  water 105 

POWER— 

Demand  for  power 100 

Water  available  for  power  development  at  Iron  Canyon  dam 106 

Potential  power  at  Iron  Canyon  dam 106 

Power  gained  by  passing  project  irrigation  water  through  Iron  Canyon  power  plant 107 

Average  annual  power  output,  Iron  Canyon  plant 108 

Future  increase 108 

Potential  power  on  mam  canal  at  Mooney  Island  Slough 108 

Average  annual  power  output,  Mooney  Island  plant 108 

Average  annual  power  output.  Iron  Canyon  and  Mooney  Island  plants  combined 109 

Basis  of  estimated  value  of  power 109 

Average  gross  revenue,  Iron  Canyon  and  Mooney  Island  power  plants Ill 

Power  used  in  pumping Ill 

FLOOD  CONTROL— 

Frequency  and  estimated  volume 113 

Iron  Canyon  reservoir  as  a  flood  regulator 113 

NAVIGATION— 

Effect  of  Iron  Canyon  reservoir  on  river  discharge 1 14 

Effect  of  Mooney  Island  power  plant  on  river  discharge 115 

SILT— 

Effect  of  Iron  Canyon  reservoir 115 

SALINITY  IN  DELTA  REGION— 

Iron  Canyon  reservoir  as  a  possible  means  of  control .• 115 

Other  reservoirs 1 16 

IRON  CANYON  RESERVOIR,  DAM  AND  POWER  PLANT— 

Iron  Canyon  reservoir 116 

Iron  Canyon  dam 116 

Iron  Canyon  power  plant 117 

Flood  control  gates 1 17 


CONTENTS.  65 

IRON  CANYON  RESERVOIR,  DAM  AND  POWER  PLANT— Cntinucil.  PuKf- 

Spillways 117 

Right  of  way lis 

Estiniatetl  cost IIS 

Coii.-st ruction  materials 118 

DIVERSION  WORKS— 

Diversiou  site 1 19 

Plans  considered 119 

Plan  proposed 119 

Canal  intake 120 

Pumping  plant  for  Red  Bank  pump  unit 120 

E-irth  dike 120 

Effect  on  lift  to  Red  Bank  pump  unit 120 

Construction  materials 121 

MOONEY  ISLAND  POWER  PLANT  AND  WASTEWAY— 

Head  available 121 

Power  plant 121 

Wasteway  and  check 121 

Construction  materials 121 

Construction  program 121 

MAIN  CANAL— 

Basis  of  surveys  and  estimates 121 

Excavation 123 

Special  considerations,  upper  4.7  miles  of  canal 123 

Canal  hning 124 

Structures 124 

Siphons 124 

Wasteways 125 

Side  drain  intakes  and  culverts 126 

Checks 127 

Drops 127 

Bridges 127 

Railroad  crossings 128 

Turnouts 128 

Fences 128 

Telephone  system 128 

Patrolmen's  quarters 128 

Project  headquarters 129 

Clearing  and  grubbing 129 

Right  of  way 129 

Construction  materials 129 

RED  BANK  PUMP  CANAL— 

Basis  of  surveys  and  estimates 129 

E.xcavation,  concrete  lining  and  structures 130 

Siphons 130 

Wasteways 130 

Other  structures 130 

Right  of  way 130 

EAST  SIDE  CANAL— 

Basis  of  estimates 130 

DISTRIBUTION  SYSTEM— 

Basis  of  estimates 131 

DRAINAGE  SYSTEM— 

Requirement 131 

Basis  of  estimate 131 

OPERATION  AND  MAINTENANCE— 

Basis  of  estimates 132 

Estimated  Iron  Canyon  project  O.  and  M.  charges 133 

ANALYSIS  OF  ESTIMATED  COSTS— 

Iron  Canyon  Reservoir 133 

Main  canal  between  diversion  dam  and  Mooney  Island  power  plant 134 

(a)  General  consideration 134 

(b)  Saving  effected  by  building  diversion  dam  to  raise  water  surface  15  feet 134 

(c)  Reduction  in  cost  of  pumping,  effected  by  building  diversion  dam  to  raise  water 

surface  15  feet 135 

(d)  Increased  cost  to  build  the  first  4.7  miles  of  unlined  canal  to  include  power  water.  .  .  135 

(e)  Saving  effected  by  building  the  first  4.7  miles  of  canal,  carrying  irrigation  and  power 

water,  unlined 136 

5—50667 


66 


CONTENTS. 


ANALYSIS  OF  ESTIMATED  COSTS— Continued.  Page 

(f)   Increased  eo.st  (o  build  the  first  4.7  miles  of  lined  canal  to  include  power  water.  .  .  .  136 

Power  used  in  pumping  to  project  areas 137 

SUMMARY  OF  FINANCIAL  CONSIDERATIONS— 

Statement  A,  summary  of  various  economic  studies  made  of  diversion  works,  Mooney  Island 

power  plant  and  main  canal  between  them 138 

Statement  B,  summary  of  estimated  cost,  power  output  and  revenue 1,39 

Taxes 140 

Depreciation  on  concrete 140 

Estimated  gross  cost  of  project 140 

Estimated  net  cost  of  project 141 

Comparison  of  cost  of  various  units  of  the  project 142 

(a)  Whole  project 142 

(b)  West  side  gravity  lands 142 

(c)  Red  Bank  pump  unit 142 

(d)  Pump  units  immediately  north  and  south  of  Orland  project 143 

(e)  Pump  units  south  of  W'illows 143 

(f)  East  side  gravity  lands 143 

Summary  of  estimated  net  cost  with  power  credits 144 

Deferred  charges 145 

Possible  reduction  in  estimated  cost  of  pumping 145 

Financing  the  project  construction  cost 145 

(a)  Storage  and  power  features 145 

(b)  Canal  and  distribution  system 150 

SUGGESTED  ALTERNATIVE  PROJECTS— 

Area  and  water  supply 150 

Project  in  northern  part  of  valley 150 

Project  in  southern  part  of  valley 151 

Individual  pumping  plants  along  river 151 

Irrigation  from  Coast  Range  streams 151 

Combining  with  Glenn-Colusa  Irrigation  District 152 

Adchtional  studies  required 162 

EXHIBITS. 

Exhibit  1.     Request  for  the  investigation,  dated  November  4,  1922 153 

Exhibit  2.     Cooperative  contract  of  January  26,  1924 155 

Exhibit  3.     Agreement  covering  general  plan  of  procedure,  June  9,  1924 158 

Exhibit  4.     Statement  of  cost  of  Iron  Canyon  investigations 160 

Exhibit  5.     Detail  statement  of  cost  of  investigations  made  under  contract  dated  January  26, 

1924 160 

Exhibit  6.  Report  on  Iron  Canyon  survey — East  side  canal  by  State  Department  of  Engineering  161 
Exhibit  7.     Letter   from   Frank   Adams.    Professor   of   Irrigation    Investigations   and    Practice, 

University  of  California,  dated  March  ,30,  1925 167 

Exhibit  8.     Extracts  from  paper  "Control  of  appropriations  of  water  by  the  State  Division  of 

W^ater  Rights"  by  Edward  Hyatt,  Jr.,  Chief  of  Di\ision  of  Water  Rights,  State 

Department  of  Public  W'orks 169 

Exhibit  9.     Extracts  from  Bulletin  No.  4,  "Proceedings  of  the  Second  Sacramento-San  Joaquin 

River  Problems  Conference  and  Water  Supervisor's  Report  for  1924" 172 


CONTENTS. 


67 


TABLES. 

Page 
Table     1.     Portion  of  agricultural  areas  that  require  a  water  supplj — valley  floors,  California.  .  .  87 

Table    2.     Areas  assumed  suitable  for  rice  culture 88 

Table    3.     Summary  of  measurements  of  duty  of  water  in  rice  irrigation  in  Sacramento  Valley, 

seasons  of  1916,  1017  and  1918 89 

Table    4.     Results  of  measurements  of  use  of  water,  on  E.  L.  Adams  rice  field  near  Biggs,  seasons 

1914-1917 89 

Table    5.     Relation  of  acreage  of  general  field  crops  to  orchards  on  Orland  project  for  years 

1910-1924 91 

Table    0.     Water  requirements  for  irrigation  with  various  combinations  of  soil,  climate  and 

crops 92 

Table    7.     Mean  seasonal  rainfall  for  upper  Sacramento  Valley,  in  vicinity  of  Iron  Canyon 

project 92 

Table    8.     Summary  of  lands,  transportation  losses  and  water  requirements 94 

Table    9.     Summary  of  estimated  run-off  of  the  Sacramento  River  at  Red  Bluff  gaging  station,  for 

years  1871  to  1921 9ti 

Table  10.     Assumed  monthly  distribution  of  irrigation  water  for  Iron  Canyon  project  in  per  cent 

of  seasonal  supply 97 

Table  11.     Assumed  monthly  distribution  of  water  to  supply  prior  rights 99 

Table  12.     Evaporation  from  reservoir 101 

Table  13.     Water  supply  study  Xo.  1.     (Details  not  printed  to  save  space.    These  are  on  file  at 

office  of  Division  of  Engineering  and  Irrigation  and  may  be  consulted  there). 

Summarized  on 102 

Table  14.     Water  supply  study  Xo.  2.     (Details  are  not  printed  to  save  space.    These  are  on  file 

at  ofiice  of  Di\'ision  of  Engineering  and  Irrigation  and  may  be  consulted  there). 

Sunimarized  on 103 

Table  15.     Water  supply  study  Xo.  3.     (Details  not  printed  to  save  space.     These  are  on  file  at 

office  of  Division  of  Engineering  and  Irrigation  and  may  be  consulted  there). 

Summarized  on 103 

Table  16.     Water  supply  study  Xo.  4.     (Details  not  printed  to  save  space.     These  are  on  file  at 

office  of  Di\'ision  of  Engineering  and  Irrigation  and  may  be  consulted  there). 

Summarized  on 103 

Table  17.     Water  supply  study  Xo.  5.    (Details  not  printed  to  save  space.    These  are  on  file  at 

office  of  Di\ision  of  Engineering  and  Irrigation  and  may  be  consulted  there). 

Summarized  on 104 

Table  18.     Power  gained  by  passing  project  irrigation  water  through  Iron  Canyon  power  house. 

(Details  not  printed  to  save  space.     These  are  on  file  at  office  of  Division  of 

Engineering  and  Irrigation  and  may  be  consulted  there).     Summarized  on 107 

Table  19.     Power  output.     Iron  Canyon  power  plant 190 

Table  20.     Capacity  of  Mooney  Island  power  plant  and  its  relation  to  the  Iron  Canyon  plant. 

(Details  not  printed  to  save  space.     These  are  on  file  at  office  of  Di\ision  of 

Engineering  and  Irrigation  and  may  be  consulted  there).     Refer  to 108 

Table  21.     Potential  power  output  and  demand  Iron  Canyon  plant  only,  storage  to  elevation 

400.     (Details  not  printed  to  save  space.     These  are  on  file  at  office  of  Division 

of  Engineering  and  Irrigation  and  may  be  consulted  there).     Refer  to 109 

Table  22.     Potential  power  output  and  demand,  Iron  Canyon  plant  only,  storage  to  elevation 

405.5 191 

Table  23.     Potential  power  output  and  demand.  Iron  Canyon  and  Mooney  Island  plants,  storage 

to  elevation  400.     (Details  not  printed  to  save  space.    These  are  on  file  at  office 

of  Di\ision  of  Engineering  and  Irrigation  and  may  be  consulted  there).    Refer  to.        109 
Table  24.     Potential  power  output  and  demand.  Iron  Canyon  and  jMooney  Island  plants,  storage 

to  elevation  405.5 191 

Table  25.     Power  output  and  revenue.  Iron  Canyon  and  Mooney  Island  plants Ill 

Table  26.     Pumping  plant  data  and  summary  of  power  consumed  in  pumping  to  project  areas.  .        112 

Table  27.     Monthly  distribution  of  pumping  load 112 

Table  28.     Estimated  gross  cost.  Iron  Canyon  project 141 

Table  29.     Estimated  net  construction  and  operation  cost — Iron  Canyon  project 141 

Table  30.     Summary  of  estimated  net  costs  of  various  project  areas 144 

Table  31.     Example  of  financial  operation  of  proposed  Iron  Canyon  project  power  development.        148 
Table  32.     Estimated  construction  and  operation  cost,  canal  and  distribution  system.     (Built 

uith  interest  bearing  money) 150 


68  CONTENTS, 


PRELIMINARY  ESTIMATES. 

Page 

Pj-elimiuary  Estimate    1 .     Iron  Canyou  reservoir  right  of  way 177 

Preliminary  Estimate    2.     Iron  Canyon  dam,  bend  embankment  and  power  plant — construction  177 

Preliminary  Estimate    3.     Iron  Canyon  dam  and  power  plant — operation  and  maintenance.  .  .  .  178 

Preliminary  Estimate    4.     Diversion  works — construction 179 

Preliminary  Estimate    5.     Diversion  works — operation  and  maintenance 179 

Preliminary  Estimate    6.     Diversion  works — construction — alternative  plan 180 

Preliminary  Estimate    7.     Diversion  works — construction — alternative  plan 180 

Preliminary  Estimate    8.     Mooney  Island  power  plant — construction 181 

Preliminary  Estimate    9.     Mooney  Island  power  plant — operation  and  maintenance 181 

Preliminary  Estimate  10.     Main  canal — construction 182 

Preliminary  Estimate  11.     Red  Bank  pump  canal — construction 182 

Preliminary  Estimate  12.     Pumping  plants — construction 183 

Preliminary  Estimate  13.     Pumping  plants — operation  and  maintenance 185 

Preliminary  Estimate  14.     East  side  canal — construction 186 

Preliminary  Estimate  15.     Project  headquarters — construction 186 

Preliminary  Estimate  16.     Iron  Canyon  dam — construction — increased  cost  to  raise  water  surface 

from  elevation  392.5  to  400 187 

Preliminary  Estimate  17.     Iron  Canyon  dam — construction — increased  cost  to  raise  water  surface 

from  elevation  392.5  to  405.5 188 


APPENDICES. 

Appendix  A.     Report  of  the  U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture,  Bureau  of  Soils,  in  cooperation 
with  the  University  of  California  Agricultural  Experiment  Station,  "Recon- 
naissance Soil  Survey  of  the  Sacramento  Valley,  California,"  by  L.  C.  Holmes, 
J.  W.  Nelson  and  Party,  issued  April  26,  1915. 
(Not  included  in  printed  report  to  save  space.    Copy  on  file  at  office  of  Division  of 
—  Engineering  and  Irrigation,  and  may  be  consulted  there). 

Appendix  B.     Water  supply  and  power  studies 190 

Summaries  of  the  studies 190 


PHOTOGRAPHS. 

(Not  included  in  printed  report.    Films  on  file  in  office  of  the  Commissioner,  Bureau  of  Reclamation, 

Washington,  D.C.) 192 


PLATES. 

Plate  No. 

1. — General  location  map 69 

2. — Iron  Canyon  project  map 78 

3. — Anderson-Cottonwood  Irrigation  District  soil  map 192 

4. — Capacity  and  area  curves — Iron  Canyon  reservoir 193 

5. — Rating  curve.  Red  Blufl  gaging  station 194 

6. — Rainfall,  run-oflf  curve 195 

7. — Run-ofif  of  Sacramento  River  at  Red  Bluff 196 

8. — Graphs  of  operation — Iron  Canyon  reservoir 196 

9. — Power  demand  curves 197 

10. — Power  output  curves 198 

11. — Spillway  crest  gates  for  Iron  Canyon  dam — crest  at  elev.  400 198 

12. — Spillway  crest  gates  for  Iron  Canyon  dam,  crest  at  elev.  405.5 198 

13. — Movable  drum  gates  for  Iron  Canyon  dam,  crest  at  elev.  405.5 198 

14. — Bend  embankment 198 

15. — Cross  section  of  Iron  Canyon  dam  and  power  plant 198 

16. — Red  Bank  Creek  diversion  site — topography 198 

17. — Diversion  works — general  map  and  layout 198 

18. — Diversion  works — details 198 

19. — Diversion  works — details 198 

20. — Diversion  works — East  Side  dike 198 

21. — Mooney  Island  power  plant  and  wasteway 198 

22.— Profile  of  Sacramento  River — Red  Bluff  to  Mooney  Island  Slough 198 

23. — Key  to  canal  profiles 199 

24.— Canal  profiles 200 

25. — Tj-pical  sections — main  canal 200 

26. — Typical  sections — Red  Bank  pump  canal 200 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


69 


70  WATER  RESOURCES  OP  CALIFORNIA. 

SYNOPSIS. 


Project  considered.  The  project  considered  in  this  report  con- 
temphites  the  irrigation  of  a  gross  area  of  276,900  acres  of  land  in 
Sacramento  Valley,  California,  as  indicated  on  Plates  1  and  2.  With 
the  exce])tion  of  7000  acres  located  on  the  east  side  of  the  valley  op])o- 
site  the  city  of  Red  Bluff,  the  lands  lie  on  the  west  side  between  Red 
Bank  Creek  on  the  north  and  the  Colusa-Yolo  county  line  on  the  south. 
Storage  of  surplus  flood  waters  from  the  upper  Sacramento  drainage 
area  for  the  irrigation  of  the  ])i-oject  is  to  be  ])rovided  in  a  reservoir, 
having  a  gross  capacity  of  1,121,9(10  acre-feet,  created  by  the  construc- 
tion of  a  concrete  gravity  dam  in  Iron  Canyon,  at  a  point  about  four 
miles  upstream  from  Red  Bluff.  The  dam  would  raise  the  water  sur- 
face 152.5  feet  above  low  water  in  the  river.  Under  the  ])roposed  plan, 
757,800  acre-feet  of  this  storage,  less  evaporation,  is  annually  available 
for  irrigation  of  the  project  which,  augmented  by  natural  stream  flow 
in  the  early  months,  ]n'Ovides  a  net  annual  irrigation  draft  of  800,000 
acre-feet. 

The  proposed  project  is  long  and  narrow,  having  an  airline  length 
of  about  100  miles  and  an  average  width  of  but  four  and  one-half 
miles,  the  latter  varying  from  one-half  to  eleven  miles. 

It  is  ])ro]-)osed  to  irrigate  the  small  area  east  of  Red  Bluff  by  dii'ect 
diversion  from  Iron  Canyon  reservoir,  while  lands  on  the  west  side  are 
to  be  served  by  diversion  from  the  Sacramento  River  at  the  mouth 
of  Red  Bank  Creek,  six  and  one-half  miles  downstream  from  the  .storage 
(lam,  diversion  being  eff'ected  through  the  construction  of  a  movable 
crest  type  of  dam  at  that  point.  Ninety-four  thousand  four  hundred 
sixty-six  acres  of  the  gross  area  on  the  we.st  side  of  the  valley  will  be 
served  by  ])um])ing  from  the  main  gravity  canal. 

Development  of  ])Ower,  while  of  secondary  consideration,  is  an 
im}>ortant  phase  of  the  report,  since  it  affords  a  means  of  i)artially 
financing  the  undertaking.  The  ])lan  proi)osed  includes  the  construc- 
tion, at  the  storage  dam,  of  a  hydro-electric  plant  of  110,000  h.p. 
installed  capacity  and  a  smaller  plant  of  10,400  h.p.  capacity  on  the 
main  canal  at  ^Fooney  Island  Slough,  1.7  miles  below  the  diversion  dam. 

Purpose  of  investigation.  The  investigations  were  made,  at  the 
request  of  the  Sacramento  Valley  Develo]iment  Association  and  the 
Iron  Canyon  Project  Association,  for  the  purpose  of  determining  the 
feasibility  and  ])i'obable  cost  of  a  project  su]i]^lied  by  a  low-line  canal 
receiving  its  water  from  the  Sacramento  River  at  some  point  down- 
stream from  the  storage  dam,  rather  than  through  a  high-line  canal 
diverting  from  Iron  Canyon  reservoir  as  proposed  in  previous  reports. 
Copy  of  the  recpiest.  dated  November  4,  1922,  is  attached  as  Exhibit  1. 

Authority  for  investigation.  Authority  for  the  investigation  is 
coiitainetl  in  a  coo])erative  contract  of  January  26,  1924,  entered  into 
by  the  United  States  of  America,  Department  of  the  Interior;  the 
De])artment  of  Public  Works,  Division  of  Engineering  and  Irrigation 
of  the  State  of  California  ;  and  the  Sacramento  Valley  Development 
Association;  atlaclied  as  Exliil)it  2.  The  agi'eement  covering  the  plan 
of  procedure  to  be  folloAved  in  the  investigation  is  attached  as  Exhibit  3. 

Cooperation  received.  The  State  Department  of  Public  Works, 
Division  of  Engineering  and  Irrigation,  has  cooperated  in  the  investi- 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  71 

gations  made,  a  representative  of  tliat  department  having  been  assigned 
to  the  work.  Tliis  report,  altliougli  made  in  cooi)eration  witli  the  State 
Department  of  I'ublif  Works,  lias  been  prepared  in(k^})en(knitly  of  the 
State's  comprehensive  investigations  of  its  water  resources.  Due  to 
tlie  necessary  limitations  of  the  endeavor,  it  has  not  been  possible  for 
engineers  of  the  Bureau  of  Reclamation  to  study  the  State's  plan  for 
coordinated  development  and  control  of  water  for  irrigation,  naviga- 
tion, flood  control,  salt  water  control  and  tiie  generation  of  electric 
power  in  the  Sacramento  and  San  Joaquin  valleys.  It  is  believed, 
however,  that  whatever  is  done  should  follow  a  carefully  coordinated 
plan. 

OflBce  work.  Headquarters  for  the  investigation  of  the  Iron 
Canyon  project,  and  of  the  proposed  salt  water  barrier  below  the  con- 
fluence of  the  Sacramento  and  San  Joaquin  rivers,  were  established  in 
Berkeley,  California,  on  Ajiril  19,  1924,  the  writer  being  in  direct 
charge. 

Mr.  W.  A.  Perkins,  associate  hydraulic  engineer,  representing  the 
State  of  California,  Department  of  Public  Works,  Division  of  Engin- 
eering and  Irrigation,  was  assigned  to  the  Berkeley  office  on  July  21, 
1924,  at  which  time  the  office  studies  were  taken  up.  The  principal 
studies  made  were  those  of  irrigable  area,  soil  classification,  water 
supply,  feasibility  of  increased  storage,  and  power  development. 
Although  studies  of  water  supply  had  been  made  in  the  earlier 
investigations,  it  was  necessary  to  make  a  complete  new  study  for  the 
reason  that  conclusions  drawn  from  the  former  reports  should  be  modi- 
fied to  include  the  season  1923-24  during  which  the  run-off  from  the 
Sacramento  River  drainage  basin  was  the  lowest  of  record. 

Field  work.  Field  work  in  connection  with  the  investigations 
was  started  on  July  29,  1924,  with  Mr.  Paul  A.  Jones,  assistant  engi- 
neer, U.  S.  Bureau  of  Reclamation,  in  charge.  A  preliminary  stadia 
survey  was  made  of  a  total  of  232  miles  of  canal  line  and,  in  addition, 
a  topographic  survey  of  the  diversion  dam  site  was  made.  The  field 
work  was  completed  on  November  30,  1924,  while  the  estimates, 
on  account  of  more  urgent  work  on  the  salt  water  barrier,  were  not 
completed  until  October,  1925. 

Cost  of  investigation.  Through  the  provisions  of  the  contract, 
the  sum  of  $10,000  was  made  available  for  the  investigation.  A  state- 
ment of  cost  of  investigations  to  date  will  be  found  in  Exhibit  4.  A 
detail  statement  of  the  cost  of  the  investigation  covered  by  this  report 
will  be  found  in  Exhibit  5. 

Data  filed.  Original  computations,  maps,  rei)orts,  and  corres- 
pondence relative  to  the  investigations,  are  filed  in  the  office  of  the 
Chief  Engineer,  IT.  S.  Bureau  of  Reclamation,  at  Denver,  Colorado. 
]\Iiscellaneous  field  note  books,  canal  profiles  and  cross  sections  used  for 
estimating  purposes,  as  well  as  copies  of  comi)utations  made  in  the 
preparation  of  this  report,  are  filed  with  the  State  Department  of 
Public  Works,  Division  of  Engineering  and  Irrigation,  at  Sacramento, 
California. 

Diamond  drill  cores,  obtained  in  former  investigations  of  founda- 
tion conditions  at  the  various  dam  sites  in  Iron  Canyon,  are  .stored  at 
the  Orland  project  headquarters  office  at  Orland,  California. 


72  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

SUMMARY    OF    RESULTS. 

Duty  of  water.  The  irrigable  area  is  assumed  as  85  per  cent  of  the 
gross  area  Avithin  tlie  project.  The  general  classification  of  crops,  and 
the  assumed  net  duty  of  water  on  the  land,  are  as  follows : 

Crop  Net  duty  of  tcater 

Rice    5.0  acre-feet  per  acre 

General  crops 2.7  acre-feet  per  acre 

Orchards 1.5  acre-feet  per  acre 

Of  the  rice  area,  it  is  assumed  that  not  more  than  75  per  cent  will 
actually  be  planted  to  rice  in  any  one  year,  the  remaining  25  per  cent 
being  eitlier  fallow,  or  planted  to  crops  not  requiring  irrigation,  in 
order  to  prevent  a  ruinous  growth  of  aquatic  plants. 

The  average  net  duty  on  the  total  irrigable  area  is  2.58  acre-feet 
per  acre,  while  the  gross  duty,  including  transportation  losses,  is  3.4 
acre-feet  per  acre. 

The  rainfall  in  the  vicinity  of  tlie  proposed  project  is  normally  about 
20  inches.  The  rainy  season  usually  begins  in  November  and  ends  in 
April  or  May,  with  practically  no  rain  during  the  summer  months. 

Water  supply.  The  water  supply  for  the  project  will  be  derived 
from  the  9258  square  miles  of  Sacramento  River  drainage  area  above 
the  storage  dam  site  in  Iron  Canyon.  The  average  seasonal  run-off 
measured  at  that  point  is  roughly  10,000,000  acre-feet.  During  the 
1923-24  season,  the  measured  run-off  was  2,972,000  acre-feet,  the  least 
of  record  and  only  about  30  per  cent  of  normal.  Filings  for  diversion 
and  for  storage  in  behalf  Of  the  Iron  Canyon  project  have  been  made 
witli  the  Division  of  Water  Rights,  State  Department  of  Public  Works. 

The  irrigation  season  is  assumed  to  begin  in  Marcli  and  end  in 
October,  the  maximum  demand  for  water  being  in  July  when  22  per 
cent  of  tlie  seasonal  supply  would  be  delivered.  The  main  canals  are 
designed  with  a  capacity  of  115  per  cent  of  the  average  July  flow  to 
allow  for  daily  peaks. 

In  the  study  of  water  supply,  it  has  been  assumed  that  the  monthly 
distribution  of  water  to  supply  prior  rights  would  be  upon  the  same 
basis  as  for  the  proposed  project;  and  that  the  demand  in  July  would 
be  at  the  rate  of  6000  second-feet,  provided  that  amount  were  in  the 
river  above  the  storage  reservoir.  Upon  this  basis,  the  amount  of  water 
recjuired  annually  to  supply  prior  rights  is  shown  to  be  1,677,000  acre- 
feet.  The  run-off,  and  the  as.sumed  requirements  of  prior  rights  and  of 
the  Iron  Canyon  project,  are  sliown  graphically  on  Plate  7. 

Studies  indicate  that  in  the  sea.son  of  1923-24,  there  would  have  been 
a  shortage  of  less  than  4  per  cent  in  the  water  supply  for  irrigation  of 
the  project,  the  only  shortage  whicli  would  have  occurred  in  the  29 
years  of  record. 

No  advantage  is  taken  of  the  auxiliary  water  supply  which  might  be 
derived  from  Coast  Range  streams  crossed  by  the  main  canal,  pumping 
from  Avells,  or  utilization  of  return  water. 

Power.  Tlie  assumed  average  monthly  demand  for  power,  in 
I)er  cent  ol'  the  annual  demand,  as  sllo^vn  on  Plate  9,  is  based  upon 
data  furnished  by  the  Pacific  Gas  and  Electric  Company  for  Sacra- 
mento Valley. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  73 

According  to  the  proposed  plan,  all  water  to  satisfy  prior  rights  and 
the  project  requirements  becomes  available  for  power  development  at 
Iron  Canyon  dam.  Of  the  total  reservoir  capacity,  864,600  acre-feet 
are  reserved  for  the  purpose  of  creating  a  minimum  static  head  of  115 
feet  at  the  dam,  the  maximum  being  152.5  feet. 

Had  a  plant  been  in  operation  during  the  29  years  for  which  there 
is  a  record  of  run-off,  the  average  amount  of  power  gained  by  passing 
the  project  irrigation  water  tlirough  the  plant  would  have  been 
94,313,700  k.w.h.  per  year,  ^dth  80  per  cent  efficiency  at  the  switch- 
board. The  total  average  annual  output  of  the  proposed  Iron  Canyon 
plant  would  have  been  584,890,000  k.w.h.  and  the  plant  would  have 
been  in  operation,  at  full  capacity,  an  average  of  53  per  cent  of  the  time. 

The  proposed  plan  contemplates  the  diversion  of  3640  second-feet  of 
the  prior  rights  water  to  be  carried  in  the  enlarged  main  project  canal 
to  IMooney  Island  Slough,  4.7  miles  below  the  diversion  dam,  where 
31  feet  of  static  head  may  be  developed.  An  average  annual  output 
of  59,333,000  k.w.h.  would  have  been  possible  had  a  plant  at  this 
point  been  operated  at  80  per  cent  efficiency  during  the  29-year  period 
studied. 

The  combined  average  annual  gross  output  of  the  two  plants,  there- 
fore, would  have  been  at  the  rate  of  644,223,000  k.w.h.,  had  they  been 
in  operation  in  connection  with  the  proposed  irrigation  project  under 
conditions  of  fidl  development.  Of  this  amount,  about  60  per  cent 
Avould  have  been  primary  power  and  40  per  cent  secondary.  In  the 
estimates,  the  assumption  is  made  that  90  per  cent  of  the  primary  and 
55  per  cent  of  the  secondary  power  could  be  sold  at  the  switchboard  to 
one  of  the  distributing  companies  whose  transmission  lines  pass  within 
a  few  miles  of  the  proposed  plants.  At  4  mills  per  k.w.h.,  the  average 
annual  revenue  from  the  combined  output  of  the  two  plants  is  estimated 
to  be  $1,963,400. 

Distribution  system.  It  is  assumed  that  60  per  cent  of  the  lateral 
system,  the  larger  pump  canals,  and  all  but  the  upper  4.7  miles  of 
the  main  canal  will  ultimately  be  lined ;  but  the  cost  of  lining  the 
main  canal  might  be  deferred  for  several  years,  operating  the  canal 
during  tlie  early  development  of  the  project  at  about  two-thirds  of 
its  capacity  lined.  Estimates  are  based  upon  the  assumption  that  all 
structures  are  of  the  highest  type  of  concrete  and  steel  construction. 
Siphons  to  carry  the  canal  under  water  courses  will  be  an  expensive 
item  of  construction  because  of  their  number  and  the  shallowness  of 
the  channels,  which  are  proportionately  wide. 

Probably  the  most  difficult  problem  presented  is  that  of  wasteways, 
for  tlu^  reason  that  most  of  the  water  courses  crossed  are  only  shallow 
depressions  which  in  many  cases  are  cultivated.  Tliere  are  no  well- 
defined  natural  channels  between  miles  64  and  120,  making  it  necessary 
to  provide  artificial  waste  channels.  As  the  main  canal  parallels  that 
of  the  Glenn-( 'olusa  Irrigation  District,  means  must  be  provided  for 
carrying  Avaste  Avater  from  the  Iron  Canyon  canal  under  the  district 
canal. 

Project  drainage.  It  is  i)r()bable  tluit  none  of  the  area  north  of 
Stony  Creek,  and  tliat  only  a  part  of  the  area  to  the  south  will 
require  drainage,  but,  in  the  absence  of  accurate  classification  of  areas, 


74 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


it  is  assumed  that  the  cost  will  be  distributed  equally  over  the  whole 
project.  Perhaps  7o  per  cent  of  the  cost  of  the  drainage  system  could 
be  deferred  durinof  the  first  few  years  of  project  operation. 

Cost  analysis,  assuming  noninterest  bearing-  money.  In  all  that 
follows,  it  is  assumed  that  tliere  Avill  be  a  market  for  that  portion 
of  the  power  which,  in  the  studies,  is  assumed  to  be  salable.  The 
demand  for  power  is  increasing  rapidly  and  it  is  believed  that,  in 
normal  development,  the  increase  will  continue. 

It  is  shown  that  the  revenue  from  power,  gained  by  raising  the 
water  surface  in  the  storage  reservoir,  is  more  than  sufficient  to  pay  the 
cost  of  installing  gates  on  the  si)illway  crests  for  that  purpose. 

It  is  shown  tliat  the  saving  in  excavation  of  the  first  4.7  miles  of 
main  caiuil,  made  by  building  the  diversion  dam  to  raise  the  water 
surface  15  feet,  is  more  than  sufficient  to  pay  the  increased  cost  of  the 
diversion  dam.     The  saving  is  estimated  at  about  $568,000. 

Building  the  diversion  dam  to  raise  the  water  surface  15  feet,  results 
in  a  saving  of  about  $20,000  jier  year  in  pumping  to  the  Red  Bank  unit, 
if  it  be  assumed  that  power  for  tliat  purpose  is  bought  at  $0.01 
per  k.w.h. 

The  saving,  effected  by  building  the  first  4.7  miles  of  main  canal 
unlined,  is  shown  as  about  $316,000. 

The  power  gained  annually  by  passing  the  i)roject  irrigation  water 
through  the  ]K)wer  plant  at  the  storage  dam,  Avhich  was  not  possible 
in  the  ])]an  pi-oposed  in  former  rejiorts,  is  estimated  to  be  about  94,300,- 
000  k.w.h.  Project  j^umping  recfuires  ] 8,900,000  k.w.h.  The  average 
annual  surjilus  is  estimated  at  $166,000. 

The  increased  cost  of  construction  to  provide  for  development  of 
power  at  JMooney  Island  Slough,  is  shown  as  about  $1,591,000;  but 
the  net  annual  revenue  derived  from  the  sale  of  power  generated  at 
that  i)lant,  at  4  mills  per  k.w.h.,  is  about  $166,000,  or  over  10  i)er  cent 
return  on  the  investment. 

It  is  shown  that  the  revenue  to  be  derived  from  the  sale  of  power 
would,  after  deducting  oi)erating  exj)ense,  repay  tlie  construction  cost 
of  all  power,  storage  and  diversion  features  in  20  years ;  and,  in  addi- 
tion, furnish  a  surplus  which  might  be  used  to  help  repay  the  cost  of 
the  distribution  system.    The  surplus  is  as  follows : 


Sale  price  per  k.  w.  h 

$0.0035 

?0.004 

SO. 0045 

$0,005 

•SO  006 

Annual  surplus 

$2,987 

S248.409 

.5493,831 

.S739.253 

81,230,097 

A — Estimated  project  cost,  assuming  noninterest  hearing  money,  and 
repayment  of  construction  cost  in  20  years.  Cost  assessed  against 
95  per  cent  of  the  gross  area  tvithin  the  project. 

(a)   Gross  cost,  neglecting  revenue  to  be  derived  through  the  sale 
of  power : 


Cost  per  acre. 
263,055  acres 

20  annual  installments 

Total  cost 

Constru'-tion 

Operation  and 
maintenance 

Total 

?56, 140,3 17 

«213.41 

$10.67 

$3.00 

$13.67 

DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


75 


(b)   Net  cost,  crediting  the  revenue  from  the  sale  of  power  to  the 
project: 


Net  construction  repayments 

20  annual  installments 

Sale  price  of  power  per  k.  w.  h. 

Total 

Per  acre, 
263.055  acres 

Construction 

Operation  and 
maintenance 

Total 

4  mills 

$23,123,582 
IS.215,142 
13.306,702 

$87.90 
69.24 
50.59 

$4.40 
3  46 
2.53 

$3.00 
3.00 
3.00 

$7.40 

41^  mills   

6.46 

5  mills 

5.53 

(c)   Comparison  of  net  cost  per  acre,  including  0.  and  M.  charges 
on  various  project  units: 


Project  unit 


Whole  project 

West  side  gravity 

Red  Bank  pump  unit 

Pump  units  near  Orland .  .  . 
Pum.p  unit  sjuth  of  Willows 
East  side  eravitv 


.\rca  assessed 
in  acres 


263,055 

I66.06O 

37,.380 

33,060 

19,300 

6.650 


Annual  repayment  per  acre  after  crediting 
power  at  rates  per  k.  w.  h.  indicated 


4  mills 


S7.40 
6.30 
9.17 

10.26 
0.59 
4.19 


4}-2  mills 


86.46 
5.36 
8.23 
9.32 
8.65 
3.25 


5  mills 


S5.53 
4.43 
7.30 
8.39 
7.72 
2.3? 


(d)  Deferred  charges.  The  charges  which  might  be  deferred  by 
l)ostponing  construction  of  75  per  cent  of  the  project  drainage  system 
and  the  lining  of  the  main  canal,  is  estimated  at  $41.11  per  acre,  ecjuiva- 
lent  to  $2.06  ])er  acre  per  year,  which,  considering  the  whole  ])roject, 
would  reduce  the  annual  ])ayments  during  the  first  few  years  of  project 
operation  to  the  following : 

Net  annual  repayment 
per  acre  after  deducting 
Sale  price  of  power:  deferred  charges 

4  mills  per  k.  w.  h So. 34 

41 :  mills  p.r  k.  w.  h 4  40 

5  mills  per  k.  w.  h 3.47 


B — Estimated  project  cost,  assuming  that  the  storage  and  power 
features  are  constructed  irith  interest  hearing  money,  thus  reduc- 
ing the  amount  cjf  )ioninterest  hearing  moneg  to  that  required  in 
the  construction  of  the  balance  of  the  project.  Cost  assessed 
against  95  per  cent  of  the  gross  area  within  the  project. 

Estimated  cost  of  project $56,140,;n7 

Estimated  cost  of  Iron  Canyon  reservoir,  power  plant,  and 

Mooney  Island  i)ower  development 26,363,810 

Estimated  cost  of  canal,  distribution  and  drainage  systems, 

to  be  built  with  noninterest  bearing  money 29,776,507 

In  the  i'ei)ort  it  is  shown  that  ii])()n  tlic  assumption  that  construction 
of  the  Iron  Canyon  reservoir,  i)Ower  i)lant,  and  ]\Iooney  Island  power 
development  would  cover  a  period  of  five  year.s ;  that  money  would  be 
available  at  5  per  cent  interest,  compounded  semi-annually;  that  the 
cost  Avould  not  exceed  $20,363,810 ;  and  Ihat  tiie  Iron  Canyon  reservoir 
would  be  permitted  to  exercise  a  water  riglit  for  generating  power  i)rior 
to   any    upstream   reservoirs   not   yet   constructed ;   and   that   the   net 


76 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


revenue  derived  from  the  sale  of  power  at  4  mills  per  k.w.h.  would  be 
applied  in  tlie  repayment  of  construction  costs;  the  entire  indebtedness 
($26,363,810)  could  be  repaid  in  fifty-three  years  after  beginning 
construction. 

Estimated  co.st  of  the  balance  of  the  project: 


Cost  per  acre, 
263,055  acres 

20  annual  installments 

Total  cost 

Construction 

Operation  and 
maintenance 

Total 

829,776,507 
Witli  deferred  cliarges  deducted 

$n3.20 
72.09 

$5.66 
3.60 

S3. 00 
3.00 

$8.66 
6.60 

DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  77 

CONCLUSIONS. 

1.  There  is  need  fur  a  supplementary  water  supply  for  the  suecessful 
growing  of  most  eroiis  in  8aerament()  Valley. 

2.  It  is  apparent  that  further  irrigation  (level()i)iuent  in  Sacramento 
Vallej'  without  storage  facilities  is  not  feasible. 

3.  The  proposed  Iron  Canyon  reservoir  is  so  located  that  it  may 
serve  any  part  of  the  Sacramento  Valley.  Therefore,  the  selection  of 
a  project  should  be  made  only  after  studies  of  alternative  areas  have 
been  completed.  The  project  studied  is  planned  with  the  idea  of  dis- 
tributing water  stored  in  Iron  Canyon  reservoir  over  the  nearest  avail- 
able area  on  the  west  side  of  the  valley. 

4.  The  project  studied  is  essentially  a  water  conservation  project, 
since  in  a  dry  year  approximately  90  per  cent  of  its  water  supply  is 
drawn  from  storage. 

5.  The  relatively  high  duty  of  water  assumed  in  the  studies  is 
believed  to  be  justified  by  the  comparatively  large  rainfall,  and  by  the 
fact  that  some  crops  have  been  raised  in  the  vicinity  of  the  proposed 
project  for  the  past  50  years,  or  more,  without  irrigation.  The  duties 
assumed  are  based  npon  a  fully  developed  project  and  are  not  to  be 
expected  on  individual  tracts  during  their  development. 

6.  The  question  of  prior  rights  and  the  possible  outcome  of  an  over- 
ruling of  section  11  of  the  Water  Commission  Act,  dealing  with  ripa- 
rian rights,  is  one  for  serious  consideration  in  the  study  of  any  project 
in  the  Sacramento  Valley. 

7.  Although  during  a  low  season,  such  as  that  of  1923-24,  about  90 
per  cent  of  the  project's  supply  would  come  from  storage,  the  ade- 
quacy of  the  supply  will  depend  upon  decisions  of  the  courts  relative 
to  the  right  of  riparian  owners  to  store  flood  waters  by  exercising  their 
riparian  rights,  and  upon  wdiat  action  the  federal  government  may 
take  relative  to  the  release  of  water  for  navigation  on  the  Sacramento 
River. 

8.  On  account  of  the  long  carriage  system,  without  regulating  reser- 
voirs along  the  line,  the  rotation  system  of  irrigation  is  the  most  prac- 
ticable for  adoption  on  the  project  studied. 

9.  Without  power  development  as  a  means  to  repay  the  construc- 
tion cost,  the  project  appears  to  be  infeasible  under  present  conditions, 
on  account  of  its  high  initial  cost. 

10.  Potential  primar^^  power  at  the  Iron  Canyon  plant  should 
increase  as  additional  reservoirs  farther  upstream  are  built  in  the 
process  of  normal  irrigation  and  power  development;  provided,  the 
Iron  Canyon  reservoir  is  permitted  to  exercise  a  water  right  prior  to 
any  upstream  reservoirs  not  yet  constructed.  Indications  are  that  the 
demand  for  power  will  continue  to  increase. 

11.  Estimates  of  cost  are  based  upon  present  prices  of  material  and 
labor.  The  effect  of  a  change  in  the  amount  and  value  of  power  which 
it  is  assumed  can  be  marketed  is  an  important  consideration. 

12.  It  is  probable  that  in  the  final  location  of  the  main  canal  to  serve 
the  area  studied,  adoption  of  canal  sections  and  grades  other  than  those 
used  in  the  preliminary  location  would  result  in  a  saving  in  cost. 

13.  Floods  for  some  distance  below  the  storage  dam  could  be 
reduced  materially  through  skillful  operation  of  the  gates.  Bearing 
in  mind,  however,  that  the  use  of  the  reservoir  for  flood  control  should 


i 


78  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

be  secondary  to  its  primary  use  for  storage  of  irrigation  Avater  and  for 
power  development,  it  is  doubtful  Avhether  less  precaution  should  be 
taken  in  maintaining  protective  works.  Improper  operation  of  the 
gates  might,  and  in  a  dry  season  would,  result  in  serious  shortages  in 
water  to  supply  tlie  re(iuirements  of  both  irrigation  and  power  develop- 
ment. Some  of  the  dangers  attendant  upon  an  endeavor  to  use  the 
reservoir  for  flood  control  are  demonstrated  in  tlie  report  but  conclu- 
sions as  to  the  flood  control  values  of  the  Iron  Canyon  reservoir  are 
deferred  until  the  completion  of  the  general  study  b}^  the  State  of 
California  on  the  control  of  floods  by  reservoirs. 

14.  Although  it  is  evident  that  the  construction  and  use  of  Iron 
Canyon  reservoir  in  the  manner  proposed  would  be  of  no  direct  benefit 
to  navigation  on  the  Sacramento  River,  it  is  not  apparent  that  the 
effect  would  be  seriously  detrimental. 

15.  By  sacrificing  the  power  feature  at  Iron  Canyon  dam,  the  reser- 
voir could  be  used  to  prevent  the  encroachment  of  salt  water  into  the 
delta  region.  If  the  reservoir  were  used  for  this  purpose,  the  water, 
which  with  the  power  feature  included  is  reserved  in  dead  storage  to 
create  power  head,  could  be  released  during  the  critical  period  in  the 
amount  necessary  to  act  as  a  natural  barrier  against  the  encroachment 
of  salt  water.  Such  use  would  benefit  navigation  to  some  extent,  but 
would  make  the  development  of  power  infeasible,  thus  destroying  the 
power  value  of  the  reservoir  as  a  means  of  partially  repaying  the  con- 
struction cost. 

16.  For  several  years,  during  the  development  of  the  irrigation 
project  and  power  market,  it  might  be  practicable  to  utilize  the  reser- 
voir to  the  benefit  of  navigation  and  for  the  partial,  if  not  complete, 
control  of  the  salt  water  menace  in  the  delta. 

RECOMMENDATION. 

If  a  large  project  in  Sacramento  Valley  is  considered  feasible,  and 
desirable,  it  is  recommended  that  further  investigations  be  made  of 
other  areas  which  might  be  served  by  Iron  Canyon  reservoir  in  order 
that  a  judicial  selection  of  the  area  to  be  included  within  the  project 
may  be  made.  Several  projects  which  may  have  merit  are  described  in 
the  report. 

Walker  R.  Young, 

Engineer,  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Reclamation. 


e 
le 
le 
•e 


% 


n 
1- 


M 


im 


i' 


-T    -Tl  ]—[■  ITT 


tM''  '-^"-M. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


79 


KEY   TO    PROJECT    MAP— PLATE   2. 

TJie  figures  slunvn  on  llic  left  side  of  tlie  map  represent  the  avail- 
able jrross  irri<ral)le  area  \\iiliin  a  puini)in«>:  unit,  or  thai  under  the 
gravity  canal  between  points  indicated  by  italics  on  tiie  line  of  the 
l)roposed  canal.  Subtotals  are  slunvn  at  the  Glenn-Colusa  county  line 
witli  the  idea  that  the  narrow  area  south  of  tliere,  miglit,  in  future 
studies,  be  replaced  by  other  areas. 

Italics  on  the  canal  line  indicate  the  points  at  which  a  change  in 
canal  cross-section  is  made.  The  designed  capacities  of  the  various  fea- 
tures are  a.s  follows : 


Letter 


A 

B 

B 
B-C 

r 
C-U 

D 

D-K 
E-F 

F 

F-G 
G-H 
G-H 
H-I 
H-I 
H-I 

I 

I -J 
.1-K 
K-L 

L 


Feature 


East  side  canal  diverting  at  Iron  Canyon  dam.. 

Intake  gates  at  diversion  dam 

Pumping  plant 

Main  canal 

Mooney  Island  power  plant . . . . 

Main  canal 

Pumping  plant 

Main  canal 

Main  canal 

Pumping  plant 

A:xi!iary  pumping  plant  second  lift 

Main  canal 

Main  canal 

Pumping  plant 

Main  canal 

Piimping  plant 

Pumping  plant 

Pumping  plant 

Main  canal 

Main  canal 

Main  canal 

End  of  main  canal  for  project  studied. 


Designed 

capacity, 

second-feet 


87 
,000 
371 

.oi'S  normal 
.640  normal 
,869 

.446 
,170 
206 

.51 
.004 
,486 

3.5 

,029 

9 

23 
172 
535 
279 

64 


Cro«-sections  of  the  canals,  except  that  on  the  east  side,  are  shown  on  Plate  25. 


—  1 

78 

i 
be  SOI  , 

powe  I 

taken  j 

•rates 

water  ; 

meiit. 
reserA 
sions 

defer 1  ; 

Califc 

14.  ! 
Canyc  j 
to  na^  j 
ett'ect  • 

15.  I 
voir  c(  ' 
delta  ]  j 
which  1  i 
create  .  ^  i 
amoun  ,^  | 
of  salt 

would 
power 
structii 

16.  ] 
project 
voir  to 

control  ;; 


If  a 
desiral) 
otiier  a 
that  a  . 
may  be 
the  repc 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


79 


KEY   TO    PROJECT    MAP— PLATE   2. 

The  fijjures  slunvn  on  Ihe  left  side  of  the  iiiaji  represent  tlie  avail- 
able tjross  irri«rahle  area  Avithin  a  ])unii)iii<i'  unit,  or  that  under  the 
erravitv  canal  bi'tween  points  indicated  hv  italics  on  the  line  of  tlu; 
proposed  canal.  Subtotals  are  shown  at  the  Glenn-Colusa  county  line 
witli  the  idea  that  the  narrow  area  south  of  there,  might,  in  future 
studies,  be  replaced  by  other  areas. 

Italics  on  tlie  canal  line  indicate  the  points  at  which  a  change  in 
canal  cross-section  is  made.  The  designed  capacities  of  tlie  various  fea- 
tures are  as  follows : 


Letter 


A 
B 
B 
B-C 
(" 

c-u 

n 

I)-K 

E-F 

F 

F-G 
G-H 
G-H 
H-I 

IM 
H-1 

I 

I-.I 
.I-K 
K-L 

L 


Feature 


lv.ist  side  canal  ilivtrtiiip  at  Iron  Canyon  'iam 

Intake  "atos  at  diversion  dam 

I'umping  plant 

Main  canal 

Mooney  Island  power  plant 

Main  canal ' 

Pumping  plant 

Main  canal 

Main  canal 

Pumping  plant 

A".xi'iary  pumping  plant  second  lift 

Main  canal 

Main  canal 

Pumping  plant 

Main  canal 

Pumping  plant 

Pumping  plant 

Pumping  plant 

Main  canal 

Main  canal 

Main  canal 

End  of  main  canal  for  project  studied. 


Designed 

capacity, 

second-feet 


87 
,000 
371 

,5/8  normal 
.640  normal 
,869 
131 
.446 
.170 
206 

51 
.004 
,486 

35 

,029 

9 

23 
172 
535 
279 

64 


Cross-sections  of  the  canals,  except  that  on  the  east  side,  arc  shown  on  Plate  25. 


80  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

INTRODUCTION. 


Early  investigations.  A  laii-e  project  in  Sacramento  Valley  has 
been  under  consideration  by  the  Bureau  of  lleclamation  since  its  incep- 
tion in  1902.  In  all,  five  investigations  have  been  made,  from  M'hich  the 
proposed  Iron  Camon  project  is  the  outgrowth.  Four  of  the  investi- 
gations Avere  made  under  cooperative  agreements  with  the  State  of 
California,  development  associations,  or  both. 

Investigations  made  during  the  period  1902-1904  included  a  general 
reconnaissance  of  the  entire  river  basin,  the  search  for  reservoir  sites, 
the  gaging  of  streams,  and  tlie  approximate  determination  of  the  areas 
of  irrigable  land.  The  work  was  carried  on  in  cooperation  with  the 
State  of  California  and  in  harmony  with  the  work  done  by  the  topo- 
graphic branch  of  the  Geological  Survey  in  mapping  the  valley  lands, 
and  also  in  harmony  witli  the  Bureau  of  Forestry  of  the  Department 
of  Agriculture. 

Work  was  taken  up  again  in  1909,  but  not  completed.  The  results 
and  conclusions  reached  at  that  time  are  contained  in  Report  No.  1281, 
U.  S.  Senate  Committee  on  Irrigation  and  lleclamation  of  Arid  Lands, 
Sixty-first  Congress,  third  session.  The  project  included  approximately 
100,000  acres  of  irrigable  laud.  It  was  proposed  to  provide  at  Iron 
Canyon  a  reservoir  having  a  maximum  capacity  of  about  260,000  acre- 
feet,  of  which  approximately  150,000  acre-feet  only  would  be  available 
for  irrigation.  This  storage,  however,  was  to  be  supplemented  by  a  reser- 
voir on  the  upper  Pit  River  in  Big  Valley,  bringing  the  total  avail- 
able for  irrigation  purposes  up  to  about  400,000  acre-feet.  The  average 
estimated  cost  per  irrigable  acre  is  given  as  $111.  The  possibility  of 
developing  power  at  the  Iron  Canyon  dam  was  recognized  although 
no  advantage  was  taken  of  it  to  reduce  the  estimated  per  acre  cost  of 
the  project. 

1914  Report.  In  the  summer  of  1913  certain  citizens  of  Sacra- 
mento Valley  again  took  up  the  matter,  urging  further  investigations 
for  a  more  definite  estimate,  and  at  tliat  time  it  was  proposed  to 
increase  the  height  of  the  dam  in  Iron  Canyon  to  provide  storage  for 
a  larger  area.  An  agreement  was  entered  into  between  the  United 
States  and  the  Iron  Canyon  Project  Association  which  provided  for 
further  investigations.  The  results  of  these  investigations  appear  in 
published  report  of  November,  1914.  The  project  proposed  con- 
templated the  irrigation  of  as  much  as  300,000  acres  of  land  in  the 
upper  Sacramento  Valley  and  a  reservoir  of  709,000  aci'e-feet  gross 
capacity  to  be  created  by  a  dam  in  Iron  Canyon  near  Payne's  Creek. 
Development  of  approximately  50,000  liorsepower  of  electrical  energy 
Avas  an  incidental  feature.  The  estimated  cost  per  acre  irrigated  is 
given  as  from  $37  to  $73  for  the  various  alternatives,  depending  in 
part  on  certain  assumed  values  to  be  given  for  Avater  poAver  de\^elop- 
ment. 

1920  Report.  The  in\'estigations  and  drilling  done  at  the  dam  site 
in  1913-14  indicated  foundation  conditions  not  altogether  satisfactory 
and  among  other  things  a  board  of  review  recommended  a  more  com- 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  81 

l»lete  investigation  ol'  tlie  project.  On  May  "),  1!)1'.),  an  agroemenl  was 
entered  into  by  the  United  States,  the  State  of  California  and  the  Iron 
Canyon  Project  Association  \\iiich  provided  for  continning  tlie  investi- 
gations. The  resnlts  of  the  work  are  contained  in  report  dated  May, 
1920.  This  repoi't  conteniphites  a  project  of  22'y,()00  acres  net  irrigable 
area  and  a  reservoir  of  640, 000  acre-feet  storage  available  for  irriga- 
tion, created  by  a  dam  at  what  is  known  as  the  lower  site  in  Iron 
Canyon.  The  lands  w'ere  to  be  sni)i)lied  with  water  diverted  at  the 
reservoii-  at  an  elevation  of  87  feet  above  the  water  snrface  in  the 
river  and  carried  to  the  lands  in  what  is  known  as  the  West  Side  high 
line  canal.  Development  of  ])0wer  at  the  dam  site  was  again  incidental 
to  the  plan,  it  being  proposed  to  install  generating  equijiment  of  60,000 
horsei)ower  capacity.      The  cost  ])er  acre  was  estimated  at  $1;}:}.70. 

1925  Report.  lIoi)ing  that  the  cost  could  be  reducetl,  proponents 
of  the  project  again  urged  investigation  of  a  plan  substituting  a  low 
line  canal  diverting  from  the  river  dowaistream  from  the  dam  for  the 
Ingh  line  canal,  which  it  was  said  was  exjiensive  on  account  of  the 
difficult  country-  traversed.  It  was  further  expected  that  the  cost  of 
the  project  could  be  reduced  through  the  sale  of  additional  power 
which  might  be  developed  at  the  dam  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  all 
irrigation  water  for  the  proposed  project,  as  well  as  that  to  supi)ly 
|)rior  rights  and  water  for  navigation,  could,  contrary  to  plans 
jjreviously  considered,  be  passed  through  the  pow^r  house. 

GENERAL    DESCRIPTION. 

Sacramento  Valley.  Very  complete  discussions  of  the  Sacramento 
Valley  relative  to  geograjdiy,  topography,  population,  markets,  climate, 
and  agriculture  are  contained  on  pages  1  to  27  of  a  report  of  the  United 
States  Department  of  Agriculture,  in  cooperation  with  the  University 
of  California  Agricultural  Experiment  Station,  "Reconnaissance  Soil 
Survey  of  the  Sacramento  Valley,  California,"  by  L.  C.  Holmes,  J.  W. 
Nelson  and  party,  Avhich  is  attached  as  Appendix  A.*  Other  discus- 
sions appear  on  pages  60  to  63  of  Bulletin  No.  6,  "Irrigation  Require- 
ments of  California  Lands"  published  by  the  State  of  California, 
Department  of  Public  Works,  Division  of  Engineering  and  Irrigation 
and  in  Water  Supply  Paper  495  published  by  the  United  States  Geo- 
logical Survey  which  is  a  report  upon  the  "Geology  and  Ground  Water 
Resources  of  Sacramento  Valley,  California"  by  Kirk  Bryan. 

Project  considered.  The  project  selected  for  investigation  was 
adopted  with  a  view  to  distributing  the  water  to  be  im])ounded  in  Iron 
Canyon  reservoir  over  the  nearest  available  area  on  the  west  side  of  the 
valley,  with  the  excejjtion  noted.  It  is  recognized  that  while  the  east 
side  of  the  Sacramento  Valley  may  be  supplied  with  water  from  Sierra 
Nevada  streams,  the  west  side  must  depend  chiefly  ui)on  the  Sacra- 
mento River  as  a  source  of  irrigation  su]i])ly. 

As  shown  on  Plate  2  the  project,  with  the  exception  of  7000  acres 
oj)posite  Red  BluflP,  lies  on  the  west  side  of  the  valley,  being  bounded 
on  the  west  by  the  foothills  of"  the  Coast  Range  and  on  the  east  by  the 

*  Not  iticluded  in  printed  report,  to  .save  space.  Copy  on  file  at  office  of  Division 
of  Engineering  and  Irrigation  and  may  be  consulted  there. 

6—50667 


82  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

Sacramento  River  north  of  Stony  Creek,  and  by  the  main  canal  of  the 
Glenn-Coliisa  Trrioation  District  south  of  that  creek. 

Lands.  Tlic  hinds  included  within  the  j^roject  are  privately  owned, 
and  in  some  cases  have  been  cultivated  for  fifty  years  or  more  without 
irrifi'ation.  The  major  part  of  these  lands  was  oriji'inally  embraced 
witliiii  large  land  grants  of  several  thousand  acres  each.  These  grants 
have  been  divided  and  sold  until,  at  tlie  present  time,  the  proposed 
project  consists  mainly  of  small  faj-ms.  There  still  remain,  however, 
a  few  farms  of  from  five  Jiundred  to  a  thousand  acres  each. 

Drainage.  Tiie  topography  and  natural  drainage  of  the  area 
inchuled  within  the  i)roi)Osed  project  are  such  that  jn-actically  all  of 
the  lands  can  be  irrigated.  The  entire  area  slopes  toward  the  Sacra- 
mento River,  and  with  the  excejition  of  the  high  area  east  of  Corning, 
Avhich  is  excluded  from  the  ])roject  as  nonirrigable.  the  lands  are  well 
adapted  to  irrigation  by  ordinary  methods.  Natural  drainage  north  of 
Stony  Creek  flows  directly  into  the  Sacramento  River,  but  south  of 
Stony  Creek  it  flows  into  the  Colusa  Basin,  eventually  reaching  the 
river  through  an  extensive  system  of  artificial  drains. 

Timber.  Nearly  all  of  tlie  lands  have  been  cleared  of  their  natural 
vegetation,  except  some  of  the  bottom  lands  near  the  river,  along  the 
first  forty  miles  of  canal  line,  whicii  still  retaiii  patches  of  willows,  oaks 
and  sycamores. 

Crops.  On  the  irrigated  lands,  there  is  a  wide  diversity  of  crops, 
including  alfalfa,  barley,  oats,  wheat,  rice,  melons,  garden  truck, 
oranges,  lemons,  grapefruit,  walnuts,  almonds,  olives,  pears,  pi'unes, 
grai)es,  etc.  Experiments  in  the  i)roduction  of  cotton  have  been  made 
in  the  past  few  years  and  there  is  a  growing  impression,  as  a  result  of 
these  experiments,  that  there  Avill  soon  be  a  thriving  cotton  industry  in 
the  Sacramento  Valley,  (hi  the  unirrigated,  or  dry  lands,  wheat  and 
barley  are  raised  with  fair  success.  The  rice,  alfalfa  and  grain  fields 
afford  pasture  in  the  fall  for  large  bands  of  sheep  and  cattle. 

Present  irrigation.  The  present  irrigation  consists  mainly  in 
pumping  from  wells,  witli  some  diversions  from  small  side  streams 
early  in  the  spring. 

Growing  season.  lender  average  conditions  the  growing  season 
may  be  considered  as  beginning  in  ^larch  and  closing  in  October.  In 
some  years,  however,  water  deliveries  are  made  in  February  and 
occasionally  as  late  as  November. 

Transportation  facilities  and  markets.  The  proposed  project  is 
well  located,  regarding  transportation  and  markets,  and  has  a  fairly 
well  developed  .system  of  roads  and  highways.  There  are  several 
thriving  small  towns  and  cities  on,  and  adjacent  to,  the  area  included 
within  the  i)roi)Osed  boundaries  of  the  project. 

The  main  line  of  the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad  runs  north  and 
.south  through  the  ])roject  from  Red  Bank  Creek  to  Tehama,  where  it 
divides  into  two  lines,  one  crossing  tlie  river  to  Chico  and  Sacramento, 
and  the  other  continuing  .south  through  the  i)roject  to  connect  with 
the  main  line  again  at  Davis,  about  forty  miles  south  of  the  southern 
extremity  of  the   project.       In   addition,   there   are  two   branch   lines 


1 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  83 

that  cro.ss  the  project  east  and  west.  No  huids  within  llic  project  are 
more  than  five  miles  from  a  railroad. 

The  Sacramento  Kiver  is  navi<ial)le  for  a  considerable  distanee  above 
the  city  of  Sacramento  and  boats  are  at  present  operated  on  a  regular 
schedule  between  Sacramento  and  San  Francisco,  affording  an  outlet 
for  i)roducts  by  water. 

A  i)aved  highwa}',  whieli  is  one  of  the  main  routes  from  San  Fran- 
cisco to  Portland,  Oregon,  I'uns  full  length  of  the  project.  Nearly  all 
other  roads  within  the  i)roject  have  either  a  gravel  or  paved  surface. 
The  present  system  of  roads  is  about  one-half  tliat  needed  to  fulfill  the 
requirements  of  a  fully  develoi)ed  jiroject. 

Market  conditions  are  very  favorable,  as  the  center  of  the  jjroject  is 
oidy  150  miles  from  San  Francisco,  which  is  the  center  of  more  than 
1,000, ()()()  j)0])ulation  living  in  the  San  Francisco  Bay  region. 

Cities  and  towns.  The  ])rincipal  cities  and  towns  located  within 
the  i)roject  are  Corning,  near  the  north  end ;  Willows,  near  the  center, 
and  Arbuckle,  near  the  south  end.  Other  important  towns  on  the  west 
side  of  the  river,  situated  near,  or  adjacent  to,  the  project,  include  Red 
Bluff,  Orland,  ^laxwell,  Colusa  and  Williams. 

Based  upon  the  1920  census,  the  population  of  that  part  of  the  Sac- 
ramento Valley  lying  between  the  in-o])osed  Iron  Canyon  project  canals 
and  the  river  is  estimated  at  about  19,000.  Of  this  number  approxi- 
mately 13,000  are  on  the  Glenn-Colusa  and  Orland  projects.  It  is 
estimated  that  of  the  6000  remaining,  5000  live  in  cities  and  towns 
within  the  Iron  Canyon  project  and  1000  on  farms. 

Industries.  The  chief  industries  are  farming  and  dairying.  Two 
large  canneries,  the  Maywood  and  Heinz,  are  located  at  Corning,  the 
chief  output  being  canned  olives. 

SURVEYS. 

Scope  of  work.  Since  water  impounded  in  Iron  Canyon  reservoir 
may  be  used  for  the  irrigation  of  any  part  of  the  Sacramento  Valley, 
either  by  gravity  diversion  or  by  pumping,  consideration  should  be 
given  to  alternative  areas  before  the  project  is  definitely  located,  and 
the  survey  was  planned  u])on  that  basis.  The  contract  under  which 
the  investigation  was  made  jn'ovides  for  a  study  of  lands  on  the  west 
side  of  the  valley  only.  The  surveys  made  were  intended  to  furnish 
fairly  complete  preliminary  field  data  for  the  irrigation  of  any  part 
of  the  area  on  the  west  side  of  the  valley  north  of  Putah  Creek  from 
Iron  Canyon  reservoir. 

Lines  surveyed.  A  stadia  location  survey  was  made  of  the  main 
canal  from  the  nu)uth  of  Red  Bank  Creek  to  Putah  Creek,  a  distance 
of  175  miles,  including  7  miles  of  alternate  trial  lines.  As  sliown  on 
Plate  2,  the  line  held  up  to  pass  over  the  ridg'c  formed  by  Cache  Creek 
is  thrown  into  the  foothills  south  of  the  town  of  Dunnigan.  Con- 
struction of  a  canal  througli  these  foothills  would  re(piii"e  heavy  exca- 
vations and  numerous  long  flumes  or  siplions  as  indicated  in  the 
accompanying  photogra])hs.*  To  avoid  this  the  "Bird  Creek  Low  Line" 
was  run  in  the  valley  floor  south  of  Dunnigan,  assuming  that  water 
for  delivery  south  of  Cache  Creek  could  be  pumped  over  "The  Ridge" 
back  to  the  fir.st  line  surveyed. 

*  Not    included    in    printed   report.      Films    on    file    in   office    of    the    Commissioner, 
Bureau  of  Reclamation,  Washington,  D.  C. 


84  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

A  similar  survey  was  made  of  a  high  line  canal  from  Red  Bank  Creek 
to  Rice  Creek,  just  north  of  the  Orland  project,  to  serve  the  area 
between  the  foothills  and  the  main  gravity  canal.  The  high  line  canal 
would  receive  Avater  by  pumping  from  the  Sacramento  River  at  the 
mouth  of  Red  Bank  Creek. 

In  April,  1921,  a  survey  was  made  by  the  State  Department  of 
Engineering  of  a  canal  on  the  east  side  of  the  valley,  diverting  by 
pumping  at  a  point  about  one  mile  south  of  Tehama,  to  serve  an  area 
in  the  vicinity  of  Cliico.  This  east  side  canal  could  be  served  by 
gravity  from  the  west  side  canal  by  siphoning  under  the  river,  and  to 
furnish  data  for  the  determination  of  the  feasibility  of  this  plan  a 
survey  was  made  of  a  siphon  crossing  joining  the  two  canal  lines. 

As  an  alternative  for  serving  lands  in  the  vicinity  of  Arbuckle, 
Woodland  and  Dixon  on  the  west  side  by  gravity,  pumping  from  the 
Sacramento  River  at  Knights  Landing  should  be  considered.  A  survey 
was  therefore  made  of  a  line  from  Knights  Landing  up  "The  Ridge" 
to  intersect  the  gravity'  line  where  it  crosses  Cache  Creek. 

All  of  the  lines  located,  including  that  on  the  east  side  surveyed  by 
the  State  Department  of  Engineering,  are  shown  on  Plate  2  although 
funds  were  not  sufficient  to  make  investigations  of  areas  other  than 
that  shown  in  red.    A  total  of  232  miles  of  line  was  surveyed. 

Methods  used  in  preliminary  location.  On  account  of  the  pre- 
liminary nature  of  the  investigations  curves  were  not  run  in,  an  angle 
survey  being  considered  sufficient  for  the  purpose.  The  line  was 
cross-sectioned  at  all  changes  in  transverse  slope.  The  profile  as  run 
located  the  elevation  of  all  important  changes  in  longitudinal  slope. 
The  traverse  notes  were  recorded  with  both  magnetic  and  actual  bear- 
ings. Ties  were  made  to  all  important  features  such  as  railroads,  high- 
ways, etc.  The  location  and  description  of  improvements,  timber  and 
other  features  were  obtained.  In  locating  the  canals  the  policy  was  to 
keep  clear  of  expensive  right  of  way  where  possible. 

Level  control.  Bench  marks,  established  by  the  United  States 
Geological  Survey  at  intervals  of  four  and  five  miles  throughtout  the 
valley,  were  used  for  level  control.  Elevations  are  given  in  United 
States  Geological  Survey  Bulletin  342  and  Supplementary  Bulletin 
481,  "Spirit  Leveling  in  California."  Very  close  checks  were  obtained 
for  the  first  forty  miles.  From  mile  40  to  Putah  Creek  there  seemed 
to  be  an  increasing  difference  between  the  levels  and  those  of  the 
Geological  Survey,  accumulating  to  the  amount  of  4.7  feet,  the  eleva- 
tion at  Putah  Creek  being  4.7  feet  lower  than  the  elevation  given  by  the 
Geological  Survey.  One  foot  of  this  difference  is  accounted  for  between 
the  B.  M.  one  mile  east  of  the  line  at  the  Hamilton  Branch  Railroad 
and  the  B.  M.  2^  miles  north  of  Germantown,  the  location  survey 
benches  having  been  cheeked  and  found  correct.  This  leaves  a  differ- 
ence of  3.7  feet  which  is  not  accounted  for  between  stations  3418-)-00 
and  8860-(-00,  approximately  .036  of  a  foot  per  mile.  All  other  levels 
have  been  checked  and  found  correct.  The  difference  of  3.7  feet  is 
not  considered  of  particular  importance  in  the  preliminary  survey,  as 
neither  the  area  to  be  included  within  the  project,  nor  the  cost  of  con- 
struction would  be  affected  materially,  as  the  discrepancy,  occurs  princi- 
pally through  a  country  of  fairly  steep  slopes.     The  discrepancy  is 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  85 

mentioned  here  only  as  a  guide  to  what  might  be  encountered  in  final 
location  should  tlie  project  be  considered  further. 

Profiles  of  the  lines  surveyed,  with  miscellaneous  data  noted  thereon, 
are  shown  on  Plates  23  and  24.  Typical  views  along  the  lines  located 
are  shown  among  the  photographs*  included  at  the  end  of  the  report. 

Topographic  surveys.  A  topographic  survey  was  made  of  the  diver- 
sion dam  site  at  the  mouth  of  Red  Bank  Creek.  The  profile  of  the 
river  bottom  was  determined  by  soundings.  The  result  of  the  survey 
is  shown  on  Plate  16. 

PROJECT    AREA. 

Gravity  and  pumping  areas.  Of  the  total  gross  area  of  276,900 
acres  within  the  project  considered  in  this  report,  7000  acres  lie  on 
the  east  side  of  the  Sacramento  \^alley,  opposite  Red  Bluif.  This  area 
has  been  included  within  the  project  covered  by  previous  reports  and  is 
here  included  for  the  reason  that  it  is  easy  of  access,  lying  immediately 
below  the  storage  reservoir,  and  as  there  is  a  strong  sentiment  for  its 
inclusion.  Of  the  remaining  area  lying  on  the  west  side  of  the  valley, 
175.434  acres  are  served  by  gravity  and  94,466  acres  by  pumping. 

To  cover  the  desirable  areas  of  bench  lands  west  of  the  gravity  canal, 
h'ing  too  high  to  be  served  by  tlie  latter,  seven  main  pumping  plants 
and  two  auxiliaries  are  proposed.  The  location  of  these  units,  and  the 
areas  of  each,  are  shown  on  Plate  2.  None  of  the  rolling  hill  lands 
along  the  west  side  of  the  valley  have  been  included  under  the  pumping 
system,  although  mucli  of  this  area  will  ultimately  be  valuable  as 
orchard  land. 

East  side  area.  The  7000  acres  lying  on  the  east  side  of  the  valley, 
opposite  Red  Blul¥,  are  included  in  studies  made  by  the  State  Depart- 
ment of  Engineering  to  determine  the  feasibility  of  irrigating  lands 
on  that  side  of  the  valley  from  Iron  Canyon  reservoir.  The  report 
is  attached  as  Exliibit  6  and  the  proposed  canals  are  shown  on  Plate  2. 

The  quantity  figures  given  in  the  report  are  accepted,  but  additions 
are  made  to  the  estimates  in  order  that  they  may  be  upon  the  same 
basis  as  other  estimates  made  in  connection  Avith  the  investigations  just 
completed. 

Lands  within  the  proposed  project  now  irrigated.  It  is  assumed 
that  50  per  cent  of  the  lands  within  the  jjortion  of  the  project  north 
of  mile  70  on  the  canal  line  to  be  served  by  gravity,  but  now  irrigated 
principally  by  pumping  from  wells,  will  come  into  the  project  and 
that  all  other  lands  Avithin  the  project,  now  served  by  pumping,  will 
come  in.  None  of  the  lands  within  the  boundaries  of  the  Orland 
project  have  been  considered  as  receiving  water  from  the  Iron  Canyon 
canals,  although  this  would  be  feasible  if  desirable.  Areas  within  the 
proposed  project  having  a  water  supply  either  by  gravity  or  by  pump- 
ing according  to  tbe  1922  irrigation  map  of  the  State  are  shown  on 
Plate  2  in  green.  Trrigat(»rs  iiortli  of  Stony  Creek  are  at  present 
apparently  vei-y  well  satisfied  witli  pumping  from  wells.  Under- 
ground water  for  irrigation  of  )K)rtions  of  the  Iron  Canyon  project 
can  be  secured   in   varying  quantities  by  this  means,   but   it   has  not 

*  Not  included  in  printed  report.  Films  on  file  in  office  of  the  Commissioner, 
Bureau  of  Reclamation,  Washington,  D.  C. 


86  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

been  demonstrated  that  the  needs  of  a  fully  developed  system  of  agri- 
culture can  be  supplied  in  this  manner.  It  is  believed  that,  in  general, 
better  results  will  be  obtained  under  a  canal  system  deliverintr  a 
predetermined  amount  of  water  at  a  fixed  annual  cliarge  than  under 
a  system  of  individual  pumping,  since  in  the  latter  case  there  is  an 
incentive  to  cut  down  Ihc  amount  of  water  used  by  reason  of  the 
cost  of  power. 

Limiting  conditions.  The  ])roject  limits  are  fixed  by  the  amount  of 
water  availal)I('  from  .storage  rather  than  by  the  amount  of  land 
available,  and  if  the  assumptions  as  to  tlie  acreage  now  irrigated  that 
would  come  into  the  project  should  prove  somewhat  in  error,  there  is 
an  abundance  of  other  land  to  the  south,  and  on  the  east  side  of  the 
valley,  tliat  could  be  substituted  without  materially  affecting  this 
estimated  acre  cost  of  the  project. 

Irrigable  and  assessed  area.  The  percentage  of  the  gross  area  of 
276,900  acres  that  would  actually  come  under  cultivation,  excluding 
roads,  building  plats,  rougli  and  liigii  ground,  creek  bottoms,  canals 
and  laterals  is  assumed  as  85  per  cent,  or  2.'}.1,865  acres.  The  percentage 
of  the  gross  area  upon  which  return  payments  .should  be  made,  exclud- 
ing creek  bottoms  of  large  dimensions,  such  as  Stony  Creek ;  and  high 
and  rough  land,  classed  as  either  nonirrigable  or  nontillable,  is  assumed 
as  95  per  cent,  or  263.055  acres.  The  areas  excluded  as  nonirrigable 
are  shown  hatched  on  Plate  2. 

Table  1  sliows  what  has  been  accomplislied  on  other  projects  in  the 
way  of  development  of  irrigable  areas  witliin  the  project.  It  should 
be  noted  that  the  projects  bracketed  are  in  the  Sacramento  Valley, 
adjacent  to  the  proposed  Iron  Canyon  project,  and  that  the  net  area 
r(V|uiring  a  water  supply  is  S-'t  per  cent,  the  same  as  assumed  for  the 
Iron  Canyon  project. 

Tlu^  following  data,  submitted  by  the  project  superintendent  on 
January  31,  1925,  are  here  given  in  explanation  of  the  Orland  data 
appearing  in  Table  1. 

ORLAND   PROJECT— CALIFORNIA. 

Total    gro.vs   area,    including:   town    of    Orland,    townsites,    school    sites. 

and  Stony  Creek  overtiow  lands 27.2o7  acres 

Gross  area,  excluding  town  of  Orland.  and  Stony  Creek  overflow  lands  21,.SSr)  acres 

Present  irrigable  area  of  project 2().(').~tn  acres 

Irrigable  ai-ea:=7(>  per  cent  of  the  total  gross  area. 

=  97  per  cent   of   the  gross     area,     excluding     town     of 
Orland    ;ind    Stony    Creek    overtiow   lands. 

Taking  those  certain  .sections  entirely  included  in  irrigable  area 
there  are  10,345  acres  irrigable  in  a  gi'oss  area  of  10,781  acres,  equiv- 
alent to  ♦)6  per  cent. 

High  land,  togetlier  with  canal  and  lateral  rights  of  way,  are 
deducted  from  the  gi-oss  area.  County  roads  are  included  in  irrigable 
area;  state  iiigliway   is  uot   included. 

Canal  .nid  l.ilcr.il  rights  of  way  on  i)roject 647  acres 

Koiuls  Mild   liighwjiys 053  acres 


I 


DEVELOPMENT  OF   Ul'I'EK  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


87 


TABLE  1.     PORTION  OF  AGRICULTURAL  AREAS  THAT  REQUIRE  A 
WATER  SUPPLY— VALLEY  FLOORS,  CALIFORNIA. 

(Bulletin  No.  6,  pp.  70,  71.) 


Ajiriculturai  areas 


Gross  area 
within  the 

district 
boundaries 


Consolidated  Irrigation  District 

Fre?no  Irrigation  Distrirt 

.Merced  Irrigation  D'slrict  

Turlock  Irriptiot  District 

Modesto  Irrigation  District 

Orland  Project,  f.  S.  R.  S 

Imperi-.il  Irrigation  District 

James  Irrigation  District 

Glenn-Colu.sa  Irrigation  District ;  Jacinto  Irriga- 
tion District:  Provident:  Compton-Delevan; 
Maxwell  Irrigation  District:  Williams  Irriga- 
tion District 

South  San  Joaquin    


Acres 

1.51,500 

215,20.5 

190,000 

178,665 

81,18.3 

26,597 

603.840 

27,260 


167,685 
71,11? 


Land  that 

will  not 

reiiuire 

water  beine 

absolutely 
unfit  for 

irrigation 


.\cres 
3,000 
9,730 

10.000 
9,100 
7,183 
4.823 

88,840 
5,260 


18,400 
11,000 


Irrigable 
areas 
occupied  bv 
improve- 
ments 
outside  of 
population 
centers 


.\eres 
7,425 

11,770 
9,400 
8,900 
3,700 
1,800 

25,750 
1,100 


7.400 
7.112 


Net  area 

rcouiring 

a  water 

supply 


Acres 

141.075 

193,70c 

170,600 

160,065 

70,300 

19,974 

489,250 

20,900 


141,885 
53.000 


Kct  area 
requiring 

a  water 
supply  in 
per  cent  of 
gross  area 


93 
90 
90 
90 
86 
75 
81 


85 
75 


SOIL    CLASSIFICATION. 

Studies  made.  The  chief  study  of  soil  classification  was  to  deter- 
mine the  area.s  within  the  proi)osed  project  suitable  for  rice  culture, 
since  the  large  amount  of  water  required  for  this  crop  is  an  important 
consideration  in  balancing  water  supi)ly  against  i)roject  area.  A 
division  of  the  lands  within  the  proposed  project  into  areas  suitable 
for  general  crops,  alfalfa  and  orchards,  was  not  considered  necessary 
for  the  reason  that  a  large  percentage  of  the  soil,  aside  from  that  classed 
as  rice  land,  is  ada])table  to  any  one  of  the  other  crops.  The  division 
will  be  intinenced  by  economic  conditions  and  by  the  personal  choice 
of  the  settlers  more  than  by  consideration  of  type  of  soil. 

In  the  study  of  rice  areas  use  was  made  of  bulletins  i)ublis]ied  by  the 
United  States  Department  of  Agriculture,  Bureau  of  Soils,  as  follows: 

Soil  Survey  of  tlie  Red  Bluff  Area,  California. 

Soil   Survey  of  the  Colusa  Area,  California. 

Soil  Survey  of  the  Woodland   Area,   Califoniia. 

The.se  bulletins  are  summarized  in  tiie  bulletin  accom|)aiiyiiig  this 
report  as  Appendix  A,*  in  Avhich  the  classification  used  in  the  earlier 
detailed  reports  has  been  modified  to  some  extent. 

Rice  lands.  In  the  .studies  made,  only  clays,  adobes  and  clay- 
adobes  were  considered  as  rice  land;  it  being  assumed  that  the  large 
amount  of  water  re(|uirod  for  this  croj)  b\'  otiier  soils  would  gradually 
cause  their  elimination  froiii  the  area  devoted  to  rice  culture.  The 
results  of  the   studv   are  shown    in    the   following   table: 


*  Not  includeJ   in  printed   report,   to  save  .space.     Copy  c)n   file  at  office  of  Division 
of  Engineering  and  Irrigation  and  may  be  consulted  there. 


88 


WATER  RESOURCES  OP  CALIFORNIA. 


TABLE  2.     AREAS  ASSUMED  SUITABLE  FOR  RICE  CULTURE. 
Within  the  Boundaries  of  the  Proposed  Iron  Canyon  Project. 


Hamilton. 
Orlaml .  .  . 


Walker  rroek. 
Lvinan 


Jacinto. 


Kurand 

Logan  Criek . 
Lopandalf.  .  . 


Sites. 


Delavan . 
Fairview . 


Williams. 


Wootiland  area: 

Fairview 

Williams.  .  .  . 


Spring  Valley . 


Arbuckle 


Grimes .  . 
Hcrshey . 


U.  S.  G.  S.  quadrangle  sheet 


Red  Bluff  area: 
Vina 

Colusa  area: 
Vina 


Soil 

Gross  area 

.\ceumulated 

classification 

in  acres 

area  in  acres 

Ka 

1,1% 

1,195 

\c 

200 

1,395 

Wa 

1.020 

2.415 

Ssc 

50 

2,465 

Nc 

4.5 

2,510 

Wa 

280 

(20  acres  irr.) 

2.790 

Wa 

100 

2,890 

Nc 

125 

3,015 

Wa 

10.150 

13,165 

Wc 

870 

14,035 

Nc 

/.) 

14,110 

Ssc 

115 

14,225 

Wa 

4,470 

18,695 

Wa 

3,360 

22,055 

Wc 

55 

22,110 

Wa 

1.8,50 

23,960 

Wa 

2,510 

26,470 

Nc 

40 

26,510 

Wa 

1,470 

27,980 

Wa 

5,420 

33,400 

Wc 

360 

33.7()0 

Nc 

60 

33,820 

Wc 

50 

33,870 

Wa 

600 

34,470 

Wla 

1.080 

35,,')5n 

Wc 

290 

35,840 

Wla 

2,630 

38,470 

Wc 

255 

38,725 

Wla 

3,430 

(70  acres  irr.) 

42,lc5 

Wc 

505 

42,060 

Wla 

G,795 

49,455 

Sea 

200 

49,6.55 

Wla 

280 

49,935 

Sea 

600 

50.535 

Wla 

896 

51,431 

Sea 

1,100 

52.531 

Ka  --Kirkwood  silty  clay  adobe. 
Nc  — Norman  clay  adobe. 
Wa — Willows  clay  a(tolK. 
Ssc  — Sacramento  silty  clay. 
Wc  — Willows  clay. 
Wla — Willows  clay  adobe. 
Sea  — Sacramento  cluy  adobe. 


Explanation  of  SollICIassification. 


DUTY   OF   WATER. 

Basis  of  assumed  duty.  The  net  duty  of  water  assumed  in  the 
preparation  of  this  report  is  based  on  a  careful  use  of  water  under 
conditions  of  a  fully  developed  project,  with  an  efficient  distribution 
system  and  well  prepared  land.  The  duty  assumed  is  not  to  be  expected 
in  the  early  years  of  project  oi)eration  during  the  period  of  land 
leveling,  soil  reconstruction  and  development  of  farm  water  distribution 
facilities.  The  net  duty  used  is  slighlly  higlier  tlian  that  used  in  the 
1920  re]»()ft  on  Iron  Canyon  ])rojecl,  but  it  is  believed  that  the  higher 
duly  is  justified  by  the  more  recent  data  gathered  by  tlie  State  Dei)art- 
ment  of  Public  Works,  Division  of  Engineering  and  Irrigation,  in  the 
preparation  of  tlie  report  to  the  legislature  of  1923,  on  tlie  Water 
i^csources  of  ("aiiforuia.  Tlie  duty  of  water  used  in  the  studies 
included  herewith  is  that  shown  on  ])agt'  62  of  Bulletin  No.  6  of  the 
above  report.     In  case  of  the  duty  for  rice  lands,  data  were  sought 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


89 


which  could  be  applied  to  the  particular  soils  within  the  project 
assumed  to  be  suitable  for  rice  culture.  Tables  3  and  4  contain  data 
extracted  from  paj^es  58  and  59  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Sacramento 
River  Problems  Conference.  January  25  and  26,  1924,  Avhich  it  is 
believed  is  applicable  to  the  proposed  Iron  Canyon  project. 


TABLE  3.  SUMMARY  OF  MEASUREMENTS  OF  DUTY  OF  WATER  IN 
RICE  IRRIGATION  IN  SACRAMENTO  VALLEY,  SEASONS  OF  1916, 
1917  AND  1918,  GROUPED  BY  SOIL  TYPES  AND  ARRANGED  IN  ORDER 
OF  DEPTH  OF  WATER  APPLIED. 

Net  use  under  usual  practice. 


Soil  classification 


Cap"»y  clay 

Willows  clay  adobe.  . 

Willows  clay 

Stockton  clay  adobe. 
Sicramento  clay. ... 

Total  or  average 


Number  of 

full  season 

observations 


2 
7 
7 
12 
4 


32 


Total  area 

included  in 

obervations, 

acres 


355 

8,477 
5,057 
2,877 
4,653 


21,419 


.\verage  net 

depth  of 

water  applictl, 

feet  depth 


3.94 
4.22 
5.08 
5.13 
5.72 


4.86 


.\verage  area 
served  during 

full  season 
per  cubic  foot 

per  second, 
acres 


81 
72 
70 
60 
59 


TABLE  4.  RESULTS  OF  MEASUREMENTS  OF  USE  OF  WATER  ON  E.  L. 
ADAMS  RICE  FIELD,  NEAR  BIGGS,  1914-1917,  AREA  39.5  ACRES;  SOIL. 
STOCKTON  CLAY  ADOBE. 

Net  use  on  small  field  undei  the  best  practice,  with  soil  fully  adapted  to  rice,  land  well  prepared,  water  completely 
under  control,  and  water  gra.ss  kept  in  check. 


Full  irrigation  season 

Net  depth 

of  water 

apolied, 

feet 

.\verage  area  served  per 
cubic  foot  per  second,  acres 

Yield  per  acre 
in  sacks 

Period  of 
submerge.nce 

\\Tio1p 
season* 

averaging 

Year 

From 

100  pounds 

!<I14 

Apr.  29  to  Oct.   12 
Apr.  21  to  Oct.     1 
Apr.  13  to  Sept.  30 
Apr.  11  to  Sept.  21 

4.65 
4.87 
4.27 
4.. 37 

68 
66 
70 
62 

56 
51 
56 
51 

60 

1915     

45 

1916 

1917 

39 
39 

4.53 

60 

53 

46 

*Only  days  water  used  during  pre-submergence  period  considered  in  computing  whole  season. 

Assumed  duty.  The  duty  of  Avater  assumed  in  the  studies,  exclu- 
sive of  tran.sportation  losses,  except  as  noted,  is  as  follows: 

(a)  On  rice  lands  served  by  gravity.  Net  area  irrigated,  S5  per 
cent  of  gross  area.  For  areas  considered  adaptable  to  rice  culture  it  is 
assumed  that  75  per  cent  of  the  net  irrigable  area  will  be  in  cultivation 
in  any  one  yeai*.  resulting  in  an  area  requiring  water  of  64  ])er  cent 
of  the  gross  area.  Duty  of  water,  5  acre-feet  per  acre  on  the  net  area, 
or  3.2  acre-feet  on  the  gross  area. 

(b)  On  lands  served  by  gravity  other  than  rice  lands.  Net  area 
irrigated.  S5  |)er  cent  of  gross  area.  Twi^nty  |>er  eent  of  net  area 
])lanted  to  fruit  with  a  duty  of  1.5  acre-feet  per  acre.  Eiglity  per  cent 
of  net  area  planted  to  alfalfa  and  general  crops  with  a  duty  of  2.7 


90  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

aere-feet  per  acre.     On  tliis  basis  tlie  net  duty  on  the  gross  area,  exclu- 
sive of  rice  lands,  is  2.1  acre-feet  per  acre. 

(c)  On  rice  lands  served  by  i)umi)in<>:.  Duty  same  as  for  rice  lands 
served  by  jrravity. 

(d)  On  lands  served  by  punipinjr  other  than  rice  lands.  Net  area 
85  per  cent  of  j^ross  area.  Sixty  i^er  cent  of  net  area  i)lanted  to  fruit 
witli  a  duty  of  1.5  acre-feet  i)er  acre.  Forty  pei-  cent  of  net  area 
jilanted  to  alfalfa  and  <reneral  crops  with  a  duty  of  2.7  acre-feet  per 
acre.  On  this  basis  the  net  dut>'  on  the  jrross  area,  exclusive  of  rice,  is 
1.7  acre-feet  ))er  acre. 

(e)  On  lands  on  east  side  of  vaMcy  ojjposite  Red  Blutf.  Xet  area 
85  ])er  cent  of  gross  area.  Duty  of  water.  3.0  acre-feet  on  the  gross 
area,  including  transjiortation  losses. 

Supporting  data.  As  a  check  u])on  the  above  assumptions,  ]Mr. 
P^rank  Adams,  In-igation  Investigations,  United  States  Dei)artment  of 
Agriculture  and  University  of  California,  was  requested  to  make  an 
independent  study  of  the  ])roject.  The  results  of  ^Ir.  Adams'  investiga- 
tion is  contained  in  his  letter  of  Marcli  :50.  1!)25,  attached  as  Exliibit  7. 
He  makes  the  following  estimate  of  classification  aiul  net  duty  of  water: 

Gravity  si/sfei)) — 

Orchard  aiul  general  crops 25'/f      1.5     acre-feet 

Alfalfa     457r     2.75  acre-feet 

Rice    809;      5.0     acre-feet 

PuiiipiiKj  sjjsfcm — 

Orchard  and  general  crops 50'/^      1.5     acre-feet 

Alfalfa    409;      2.75  acre-feet 

Rice    lO*:^      5.0     acre-feet 

Excluding  the  7000  acres  on  the  east  side  of  the  valley  opposite  Red 
Bluff,  which  was  not  included  in  ]Mr.  Adams'  survey,  the  water  required 
upon  the  basis  of  the  duties  and  classification  assumed  in  the  report 
(exclusive  of  canal  losses)  is  5S9.770  acre-feet.  Using  the  classifica- 
tion and  net  duty  suggested  by  Mr.  Adams,  the  net  water  re<iuirement 
is  found  to  be  586.780  acre-feet. 

Although  ^Mr.  Adams'  estimate  of  classification  and  duty  of  water 
is  not  identical  with  the  assumptions  made  in  this  re^iort.  the  total  net 
amount  of  water  required  for  the  i)roject  in  either  case  is  the  same, 
and  this  appears  to  be  the  important  consideration.  It  is  ])robable 
that  iMr.  Adams'  estimate  is  the  better. 

On  ])age  75  of  Bulletin  Xo.  '-l.  "Investigations  of  the  Economical 
Duty  of  Water  for  Alfalfa  in  Sacramento  Valley,  California."  which 
is  based  on  data  gathered  by  cooi^erative  agreement  betweeri  the  Depart- 
ment of  Agriculture,  California  State  Dei)artment  of  Engineering  and 
the  Agricultural  Exjieriment  Station  of  the  University  of  California, 
it  is  stated  that  a  depth  of  water  of  from  ;^0  to  o()  inches  annually  is 
the  most  desirable  quantity  of  irrigation  water  to  ai)ply  under  general 
Sacramento  Valley  conditions  for  the  production  of  alfalfa.  Taking 
into  considei-ation  the  fact  that  a  ])ortion  of  the  general  field  crops  ^yill 
include  such  annual  crops  as  milo.  grains  other  than  rice,  melons,  truck, 
etc.,  Avhich  require  less  water  than  alfalfa,  it  aj^jiears  that  the  assunip- 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


91 


tion  of  2.7  acre-feet  ])er  acie  a.s  the  annual  net  duty  for  alfalfa  and 
general  crops  is  reasonable. 

It  is  difficult  to  ])re(lict  the  relation  between  areas  which  will  be 
planted  to  <>eneral  field  crojvs  and  orchaixls.  ])ata  for  the  Orland 
Project  are  given  in  Table  "). 

TABLE   5.     RELATION  OF   ACREAGE   OF   GENERAL   FIELD   CROPS   TO 
ORCHARDS— ORLAND  PROJECT— 1910  TO  1924. 


Total 
acreage 
irrigated 

General  field  crops 

Orchards 

Year 

Acreage 
irrigated 

Per  cent 
of  total 

Acreage 
irrigated 

Per  cent 
of  total 

1910 

703 

2,663 

4,230 

6,616 

7,354 

8.928 

9.357 

12,927 

14,764 

15,203 

13,872 

14,697 

15,119 

15,500 

11,962 

503 

2.390 

3,878 

5,877 

6,362 

7,426 

7,355 

10.592 

12,060 

12,007 

10,781 

11,121 

11,167 

10,907 

7.742 

71.4 
89.8 
91.7 
88.8 
86.5 
83.2 
78.6 
82.0 
81.7 
79.0 
77.7 
75.7 
73.9 
70.4 
64.6 

200 

273 

352 

739 

992 

1,502 

2,002 

2,335 

2,704 

3,196 

3,091 

3,576 

3,952 

4,593 

4,220 

28  6 

1911 

10.2 

1912 

8.3 

1913   

11.2 

1914 

13.5 

1915       

16  8 

1916 

21  4 

1917 

18.0 

1918  

18.3 

1919                                   

21.0 

1920  

22.3 

1921 

24.3 

1922     

26.1 

1923 

29.6 

1924                                              .    . . 

35  3 

The  large  percentage  of  28.6  appearing  in  1910  is  due  to  the  fact 
that  there  were  several  mature  orchards,  operated  in  i)revious  years 
under  dry  farm  methods,  which  constituted  the  orchard  acreage  for 
that  year  and  which  were  not  a  direct  result  of  the  ])roject's  con- 
struction. 

The  i)ercentage  of  35. o  in  1924  is  ex])lained  by  the  abnormal 
drought  conditions  and  water  supply  shortage  which  resulted  in  a  less 
amount  of  orchard  acreage  than  general  crops  being  omitted  from  the 
irrigated  area,  because  of  the  larger  investment  represented  by  the 
orchards.  They  were  given  ]n-eference  over  general  crojis  in  the  use 
of  the  limited  water  su])ply  available. 

It  is  readily  conceivable  that  a  higher  percentage  tiiaii  'VA\  for 
orchards  may  be  expected  on  the  Orland  project,  and  in  comparison, 
it  would  a))pear  that  the  assum]ition  of  20  ])er  cent  of  the  net  area 
of  the  Iron  Canyon  project  gravity  lands,  exclusive  of  rice  lands, 
planted  to  orchards  is  somewhat  low.  However,  the  assumption,  if 
in  error,  is  on  the  safe  side  considering  water  suii])ly  and  would  tend 
to  oifset  any  error  resulting  from  the  assumption  that  (50  per  cent  of 
the  net  area  exclusive  of  rice  lands  under  pumping  will  be  planted  to 
orchards.  The  higher  ])ercentage  assumed  in  orchard  under  pumjung 
is  ]iredicated  upon  the  assum))tion  that  in  general  there  is  less  danger 
of  frost  on  the  highei-  bench  lands  than  on  lands  under  the  gravity 
canal. 

A  comparatively  high  duty  of  water  is  almost  certain  to  result 
ultimately  in  the  Sacramento  and  San  Joacpiin  valleys  for  tiie  i-eason 
that  there  is  a  very  large  ai'ea  of  highly  desirable  land  in  these  valleys 
with  a  limited  water  sui)[)l>'.  Maiiagei-s  of  ii-rigation  sy.stems  have 
been   very   active   in    making  the  Avater  go  as   far  as   possible   and    in 


92 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


several  eases  hydrograpliers  have  been  employed  to  investigate,  and 
report,  any  preventable  waste. 

Comparison  with  other  projects.  Table  6  may  be  convenient  in 
comparing  the  proposed  Iron  Canyon  project  with  other  well-known 
projects.  The  average  net  dnty  of  2.58  acre-feet,  resulting  from  the 
assumptions  made,  is  somewhat  lower  than  tlie  desired  net  duty  of  2.25 
acre-feet  per  acre  given  on  pages  29  and  63  of  State  Bulletin  No.  6. 
Upon  the  other  hand,  tlie  duty  is  higher  than  that  of  3.00  acre-feet 
per  acre  obtaining  on  the  Orland  project.  The  Orland  project  is 
hardly  a  criterion  for  the  Iron  Canj-on  project,  since  the  former  is 
situated  upon  the  gravelly  cone  of  Stony  Creek  and  the  soil,  in  gen- 
eral, is  more  porous  than  that  included  within  the  Iron  Canyon  project. 

In  Table  8  the  net  duty  on  the  irrigable  area  within  the  gravity 
portion  of  the  proposed  project  is  sliown  to  be  2.79  acre-feet  per  acre. 
This  compares  with  2.75  acre-feet  adopted  in  the  1920  report,  in  which 
a  project  served  entirely  by  gravity  is  considered.  The  net  duty  on 
the  total  irrigable  pumping  area  is  2.17  acre-feet  per  acre,  the  higher 
duty  being  explained  by  the  fact  that  a  larger  percentage  of  the  pump- 
ing areas  is  assumed  to  be  planted  to  orchards  than  in  the  lower  areas 
served  by  gravit3^ 

Rainfall.  In  comparing  the  Iron  Canyon  project  with  others,  the 
comparatively  high  rainfall  in  the  locality  of  the  project  should  be 
considered.  Although  the  rains  occur  largely  in  the  nonirrigating 
season,  they  would  have  considerable  effect  in  reducing  the  necessary 
supplementary  supply  of  water.  The  mean  seasonal  rainfall  in  the 
upper  Sacramento  Valley,  in  the  vicinity  of  the  proposed  project,  is 
given  in  Table  7. 


TABLE  7.     MEAN  SEASONAL  RAINFALL— UPPER  SACRAMENTO  VALLEY 
IN  VICINITY  OF  IRON  CANYON  PROJECT. 

Rainy  season  usually  bogins  in  November  and  ends  in  .\pril  or  May,  witli  pr.ictically  no  rain  during  the  summer  months. 


Station 


*Meau 
seasonal 
rainfall, 

inches 


Red  Bluff 
Tehama.. 
Willows. . 
Orland... 
Corning. . 
Chico.... 
Colusa. . . 
Duunigan 


25.19 
20.5.3 
16.65 
18.02 
20. 5S 
23.78 
16.12 
20.27 


*ix'ason  i-'  from  .Inly  1  to  June  30.    Records  include  the  season  1920-21. 

Project  development.  The  development  of  the  project  Avill  prob- 
ably he  gradual  for  two  reas(tns:  first,  the  area  within  the  project  is 
large,  and,  second,  the  fact  that  mucli  of  the  land  has,  with  some  .suc- 
cess, been  dry  farmed  to  grain  in  large  tracts  can  not  be  overlooked, 
and  old  settlers  will  probablx'  not  be  easily  convinced  that  irrigation  on 
smaller  tracts  would  be  as  easy,  or  profitable.  Studies  of  irrigation 
development  in  California,  recently  completed  by  the  Irrigation  Sec- 
tion of  the  Commonwealth  Club,  show  that  in  1921:  tlie  area  actually 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


93 


irrigation 


California  was  76.5  por  ceiiL  ol'  that   lor  wlui'li 
constrnc'ted.       The  relation  for  Bureau  of  Reclamation 
hown  to  be  75  per  cent,  and  it  is  said  that  in  j^^eneral 


.  rioV/U 


06.  • 


TABLE  6.     WATER  REQUIREMENTS  ON  IRRIGATION  PROJECTS. 

Data  on  Federal  Projects  from  Reports  by  Projects  and  Correspondence  Relative  Thereto. 

Data  for  Other  Projects  from  Bulletin  6,  California  Department  of  Public  Works. 

(Compilation  by  Hydrographic  Section,  Denver  Office,  Bureau  of  Reclamation.) 


Project 


Average 

elevatioD 

above 

aea  level 


Length  of 
irrigation 


days 


Average 
annual 

precipita- 
tion in 
inchea 


Years  uaed  in 
arriving  at  use  of 
irrigation  water 


Average 

annual 

delivery  of 

irrigation 

water  at 

the  farm 

in  acre.feet 

per  acre 


Average 
precipita- 
tion in 
growing 
season 
in  feet 


Total 
water 
applied  in 
growing 
season, 
acre-feet 
per  acre 


Principal  crops  ranked  by 
relative  acreage 


Maximum 
delivery  of 
irrigation 
water  in 
one  month, 
acre-feet 
per  acre 


United  States  reclamation  projects': 

Sun  River,  Montana  iFt.  Shaw  Division) 

Huntley,  Montana 

Lower  Yellowstone,  Montana 

Shoshone,  Wyoming  'Garland  Division). . 

Klamath.  Califorma-Oregon 

Okanogan.  Washington 

Vakinia,  Tieton,  Washington 

North  Plate,  Nebraska-Wyoming 

Minidoka  (gravity),  Idaho 

Minidoka  (pumping).  Idaho 

N'ewlands  (Carson),  Nevada 

Boise,  Idaho 

Umatilla,  Oregon 

Yakima,  Sutmyslde.  Washington 

Uacompahgre.  Colorado 

Orand  VaUey.  Colorado 

Rio  Grande,  Te::aa-New  Mexico 

Carslbad,  New  .Mexico 

Salt  River,  Arizona   

Yuma,  Arizona-California 

Orland,  California 

Private  projects: 

Durham  Stat*  Land  Colony,  California  . . 

Lob  MolinoE  Land  Company,  California. . 

ModesU.  Irrigation  District,  California. . . 

R  iverside  Wat^r  Company,  California 

Imperial  Irrigation  District,  California . . . 

Pro[)osed  Iron  Canyon,  (California 


Sandy  loam,  cby  and  alluvium 

Sandy  loam  and  clay 

Sandy  loam 

Sandy  loam  and  clay 

Disintegrated  basalt,  volcanic  ash. . . . 

Volcanic  ash,  sand  and  gravel 

Volcanic  ash,  decomposed  basalt 

Sandy  and  clay  loams 

Sandy  and  clay  loams 

Volcanic  ash , 

Sandy,  sandy  loam,  clay,  volcanic  aah. 

Sandy  and  clay  loams 

Sandy  and  sandy  loam 

Volcanic  ash,  decomposed  basalt 

Sandy  gravel,  clay  and  clay  loam 

Sandy  loam  and  clay 

Alluvium  and  sandy  loam 

Sandy  loam 

Sandy  loam 

Rich  alluviiun 

Sandy,  silt  and  clay  loams 

Sandy  and  clay  loams 

Sandy  loam  and  river  silt 

Sandy  and  clay  loams 

Sandy  loam  and  clay 

Sandy  loam  and  clay 

Sandy  loam,  alluvium  clay 


3,700 
3,000 
1,900 
4,500 
4,100 
1,000 
1,700 
4.100 
4,200 
4,200 
4,000 
2,600 
470 
700 
5,500 
4,700 
3,700 
3,100 
1,200 
100 
250 

160 
200 
100 
850 
—100 
323 


163 
153 
163 
165 
168 
153 
164 
183 
183 
183 
198 
200 
210 
214 
214 
214 


363 
365 
267 

275 
275 
273 
365 
365 
267 


10.9 
13,1 
14.9 
5.6 
12.7 
11.5 
8.1 
14.7 
11.8 
11.8 
4.6 
13.7 
7.9 
6.5 
9.6 
8.3 
10.0 
14.4 
8.4 
3.6 
18.4 

24.5 
20.1 
10.2 
10.7 
3  0 
20.1 


1914-23,  inc. 

1914-23,  inc. 

1914-23,  inc. 

1914-23,  inc. 

1914-23,  inc. 
1914-17,  1921-23,  inc. 

191fi-24,  inc. 

IS14-23,  inc, 

1013-22,  inc. 

1914-23,  inc, 

1914-23,  inc. 

1914-23,  inc. 

1913-24,  inc. 

1916-24,  inc. 

1914-23,  inc. 

1917-24,  inc, 

1919-23,  inc, 

1914-23,  inc. 

1913-20,  inc. 

1914-23.  inc, 
1917-19 ,  1921-23,  inc. 

1920 
1916-21,  inc. 

1914-19»,  inc. 

1908-14,  1918 
1916-21,  inc. 


1.33 

1.25 
1.36 
2.55 
1.45 
2.61 
2.58 
2,14 
4.13 
2.48 
3.00 
3.61 
5.53 
3.42 
0.23 
3.87 
3.23 
2.62 
2.82 
3.82 
3.17 

2.70 
4.20 
2.6 
3.0 
3.0 
2.58 


'.85 
•.37 
'.27 


'1.09 
•.31 
■.59 
■.24 
■.38 
'.36 
'.21 
■.68 
'.45 
'.57 

'1.08 
'.70 
'.30 
'.30 

'1.08 
'.70 
'.38 
'.90 
'.23 
'.85 


2.29 
2.07 
2.21 
2.92 
1.72 
3.07 
2.74 
3.23 
4.64 
3.07 
3.24 
3.99 
5.89 
3.63 
6.81 
4.32 
3.80 
3.70 
3.52 
4.12 
3.67 

3.78 
4.90 
2.98 
3.90 
3.23 
3.43 


grain 

grain,  beets 

grain,  beets 

grain,  beets,  potatoes. . 

grain,  vegetables 

alfalfa,  fruit 

apples,  grain,  potatoes, 
grain,  beets,  potatoes. . 
grain,  beets,  potatoes. . 
grain,  beets,  potatoes. . 

grain 

grain,  potatoes,  fruit. . . 
ruit. 


Alfalfa, 
.Alfalfa, 
Alfalfa, 
Alfalfa, 
Alfalfa, 
Apples, 
Alfalfa, 
Alfalfa. 
Alfalfa, 
Alfalfa, 
Alfalfa, 
Alfalfa, 
Alfalfa, 
Alfalfa. 
Alfalfa, 
Alfalfa, 
Cotton, 
Cotton, 
Cotton, 
Cotton, 
.Utalfa, 


Alfalfa,  fruit 

Alfalfa,  fruit 

Alfalfa,  fruit,  corn,  beets,  melons,  beans. . . 

Fruit,  alfalfa,  vegetables 

Alfalfa,  grain,  cotton,  vegetables,  fruit. ... 
.Alfalfa,  grain,  fruit,  nuts,  rice,  vegetables. . 


apples,  grain,  potatoes 

grain,  potatoes,  beets 

beets,  grain 

alfalfa,  grain,  vegetables,  fruit. . 

alfalfa 

alfalfa,  gram,  vegetables,  fruit. . 

alfalfa,  grain 

fruit 


.82 
.70 


.47 
.81 
.58 
.80 


.90 
1.50 

.65 
1.34 


.50 
.37 
.70 

.70 
1.04 
.50 
.45 
.40 
.57 


'For  federal  projects  the  quoted  delivery  to  farms  is  the  amount  of  water  charged  to  the  water  user  plus  allowance  for  undermeasurement  of  water  from  estimate  by  project  superintendent,  such  allowance  averaging  alwut  10  per  cent. 

'  April  to  September,  inclusive. 

■  April  to  October,  inclusive. 

'  March  to  October,  inclusive. 

'  February  to  November,  inclusive. 

» .Ml  year. 

•  February  to  October,  inclusive. 


'  Average  of  February-October,  inclusive,  at  Red  BluB,  Tehama,  Willows,  Orland,  Corning,  Colu.sa  and  Dunnigan. 
■  Includes  years  of  inadequate  supply  for  lack  of  storage. 


50667 — pages  92-93 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  93 

irrigated  in  California  was  7(i.o  i)er  coiit  of  that  for  wliicli  irrigation 
works  were  eonstrut'ted.  Tlie  relation  for  liureau  of  Reelaaiation 
projects  is  sliown  to  be  To  per  cent,  and  it  is  said  that  in  general 
70  per  cent  utilization  is  reached  in  about  35  years  under  normal 
development. 

It  is  believed  that  the  gradual  development  anticipated  for  the  Iron 
Canyon  project  will  give  opportunity  for  the  attainment  of  a  compara- 
tively high  duty  of  water,  since  the  lands  coming  into  the  i)roject  in 
its  early  development  Avill  have  become  ada])ted  to  a  high  duty  long 
before  the  project  is  fully  developed.  Gradual  develoi)ment  should 
not  be  detrimental  to  the  economic  feasibility  of  the  project,  as  the 
storage  dam,  diversion  dam  and  power  features,  should  be  self-support- 
ing through  the  development  and  sale  of  power;  and  in  the  construction 
of  the  canal  system  the  concrete  lining,  and  much  of  the  drainage 
works,  can  be  deferred  so  that  the  co.st  of  the  ultimate  project  need  not 
be  incurred  in  tlie  early  stage  of  development. 

Water  requirements.     The  water  assumed  to  be  required  by  the 

project  is  sliown  in  Table  8. 


EXPLANATION  OF  TABLE  8. 

Column  1,  Tabulation  of  the  gross  irrigable  areas,  less  one-half  the  areas  now 
under  irrigation  under  the  proposed  gravity  lines  to  Sta.  3674-1-00.  There  is  very 
.small  amount  of  irrigated  area  below  this  point  and  it  is  as.sumed  that  practically 
all  this  will  come  into  the  project.  No  deductions  were  made  for  irrigated  lands 
under  proposed  pumping  units.     See  Plate  2. 

Column  2,  Tabulation  of  the  gross  areas  classified  as  rice  lands. 

Column  3,  Tabulation  of  one-half  the  irrigated  areas  to  Sta.  3674-f  00  which  were 
deducted  from  the  gross  irrigable  area. 

Column  4,  Tabulation  of  the  net  areas  based  on  85%  of  the  gross  areas  Included 
in  the  project. 

Column  5,  Tabulation  of  net  acre-feet  duty  on  gross  areas  based  on  3.2  acre-feet 
per  acre  for  rice  lands  and  2.1  acre-feet  per  acre  for  other  lands  under  gravity  and 
1.7  acre-feet  per  acre  for  other  lands  under  pumping  areas. 

Column  6,  Tabulation  of  net  duties  in  second-feet  at  peak  period  in  July,  based 
on  22%  of  the  seasonal  supply  delivered  during  the  month,  and  15%  of  average  daily 
flow  added  to  average  for  peak  flow.     Refer  to  Table  10. 

Columns  7  and  8,  Tabulation  of  losses  in  carriage  for  the  several  sections.  The 
second-feet  losses  were  determined  by  allowing  0.3  of  a  foot  depth  over  the  wetted 
area  for  24  hours  at  peak  period.  The  acre-feet  tabulations  are  obtained  by  assuming 
that  the  loss  at  peak  period  is  115%  of  average  daily  loss  for  July  and  that  the  loss 
thus  obtained  for  the  month  is  22%  of  the  total  loss. 

Column  9,  Tabulation  of  acre-feet  loss  in  distribution  based  on  20%  under  gravity, 
25%  for  the  large  pumping  areas,  and  15%  for  the  small  pumping  areas,  of  3200  A, 
930  A  and  1458  A.     The  losses  for  pumping  areas  include  loss  for  carriage. 

Column   10,   Tabulation  of  second-feet  losses  at  peak  period. 

Column   11,  Total  water  requirement  including  all  losses. 

Column  12,  Water  requirement  in  second-feet  at  peak  period.  It  is  assumed  that 
the  main  canal  and  60%  of  the  distribution  system  will  ultimately  be  lined  and  the 
quantities  shown  in  the  table  are  based  upon  the  fully  developed  project. 


92  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

several  cases  hydrographers  have  been  employed  to  investigate,  and 
report,  any  preventable  waste. 

Comparison  with  other  projects.     Table  6  may  be  convenient  m 
comparinu"  tlip  m'nr.Ae.ori  t —    /^^ 


n 


iWwl**  irtJ-oJ  borate  ™**'" 


1  • 
.     .      .    ,  .f Tr'irir: 


t/XXV>        C«-L   V     ti 


\wiiiiii  lue  project  is 
large,  and,  second,  tlie  fact  that  mnch  of  the  land  lias,  with  some  suc- 
cess, been  dry  farmed  to  grain  in  largo  tracts  can  not  be  overlooked, 
and  old  settlers  will  probably  not  be  easily  convinced  that  irrigation  on 
smaller  tracts  would  be  as  easy,  or  profitable.  Studies  of  irrigation 
development  in  California,  recently  comiileted  by  the  Irrigation  Sec- 
tion of  the  Commonwealth  Club,  show  that  in  1924  the  area  actually 


f 


DEVELOPMENT  OP  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  93 

irrigated  in  California  was  76.5  j)or  cont  of  that  for  whieli  irriyalion 
works  were  constructed.  The  relation  for  Bureau  of  Reclamation 
projects  is  shown  to  be  75  per  cent,  and  it  is  said  that  in  general 
70  per  cent  utilization  is  reached  in  about  35  years  under  normal 
development. 

It  is  believed  that  the  gradual  development  anticipated  for  the  Iron 
Canyon  project  will  give  opportunity  for  the  attainment  of  a  compara- 
tively high  duty  of  water,  since  the  lands  coming  into  the  project  in 
its  early  development  will  have  become  adapted  to  a  high  duty  long 
before  the  project  is  fully  developed.  Gradual  development  should 
not  be  detrimental  to  the  economic  feasibility  of  the  project,  as  the 
storage  dam,  diversion  dam  and  power  features,  should  be  self-support- 
ing through  the  development  and  sale  of  pow' er ;  and  in  the  construction 
of  the  canal  system  the  concrete  lining,  and  much  of  the  drainage 
Avorks,  can  be  deferred  so  that  the  cost  of  the  ultimate  project  need  not 
be  incurred  in  the  early  stage  of  development. 

Water  requirements.     The  water  assumed  to  be  required  by  the 

project  is  show'n  in  Table  8. 


EXPLANATION   OF  TABLE  8. 

Column  1,  Tabulation  of  the  gross  irrigable  areas,  less  one-half  the  areas  now 
under  irrigation  under  the  proposed  gravity  lines  to  Sta.  3674-|-00.  There  is  very 
small  amount  of  irrigated  area  below  this  point  and  it  is  assumed  that  practically 
all  this  will  come  into  the  project.  No  deductions  were  made  for  irrigated  lands 
under  proposed  pumping  units.     See  Plate  2. 

Column  2,  Tabulation  of  the  gross  areas  classified  as  rice  lands. 

Column  3,  Tabulation  of  one-half  the  irrigated  areas  to  Sta.  3674  +  00  which  were 
deducted  from  the  gross  irrigable  area. 

Column  4,  Tabulation  of  the  net  areas  based  on  85%  of  the  gross  areas  included 
in  the  project. 

Column  5,  Tabulation  of  net  acre-feet  duty  on  gross  areas  based  on  3.2  acre-feet 
per  acre  for  rice  lands  and  2.1  acre-feet  per  acre  for  other  lands  under  gravity  and 
1.7  acre-feet  per  acre  for  other  lands  under  pumping  areas. 

Column  6,  Tabulation  of  net  duties  in  second-feet  at  peak  period  in  July,  based 
on  22%  of  the  seasonal  supply  delivered  during  the  month,  and  15%  of  average  daily 
flow  added  to  average  for  peak  flow.     Refer  to  Table  10. 

Columns  7  and  8,  Tabulation  of  losses  in  carriage  for  the  several  sections.  The 
second-feet  losses  were  determined  by  allowing  0.3  of  a  foot  depth  over  the  wetted 
area  for  24  hours  at  peak  period.  The  acre-feet  tabulations  are  obtained  by  assuming 
that  the  loss  at  peak  period  is  115%  of  average  daily  loss  for  July  and  that  the  loss 
thus  obtained  for  the  month  is  22%  of  the  total  loss. 

Column  9,  Tabulation  of  acre-feet  loss  in  distribution  based  on  20%  under  gravity, 
25%  for  the  large  pumping  areas,  and  15%  for  the  small  pumping  areas,  of  3200  A, 
930  A  and  145  8  A.     The  losses  for  pumping  areas  include  loss  for  carriage. 

Column   10,   Tabulation  of  second-feet  losses  at  peak  period. 

Column   11,  Total  water  requirement  including  all  losses. 

Column  12,  Water  requirement  in  second-feet  at  peak  period.  It  is  assumed  that 
the  main  canal  and  60%  of  the  distribution  system  will  ultimately  be  lined  and  the 
quantities  shown  in  the  table  are  based  upon  the  fully  developed  project. 


94 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF   CALIFORNIA. 


C/3 
H 

Z 


a; 


o 

z 

o 

I— I 

H 
H 

o 

CL, 

c/5 


OS 

H 

Q 


00 

S 

OQ 


o 


g.s 


■^5CCiOc;f»f^»cccO 


O  r-  •— >  CC  *C  es  C-l 


00  ^  :£:  c:  -rj  CO  »c  c.  C  O 
c-1  !?■)  ■^  ^r  'M  —   c^t 


I-  re  o  ^7   <M  r^  I  '«f 
re  —  C-i       —   o: 


r-  3 


co;ooo^c^C)»/5cci-" 


t0050SWC0«-'®CiC^t^ 


OO  CCOOtOOOO'*  I    O 

^«  koooc^aoco  OO 

O  ^  00  '-«_  0  O^  ^_  OO  o_ 

O"  O— «' O'OO'CJ  W5"  O 

h*  Ci  ec «                -^  e*3 


00  CO  CJ  W  CC  CO  o 


O-^O  —  OC^iCiCO-M 


O0500:CC000CCC;0:00 

»0'C'<Ma:ro^*cccc<joo 

iM  —  T—cCOO^COiOOOO 


05  lO  O  OOO  lO 


OOc^iT^oi^  -ecu;! 

CI  ■*  r—  c:  r^  CI  Ci  -^ 

-^00'—  ^»CO  (M^C 

•ra  Cic;  tc  o  CO  ■  r*  eo 

!>•*  T}-'  CI  V^  U5  cfl  ; 


CI  c-j  ^-  »c  ^-  re  cc   1   oi 
c-  ec  Li  -^j-   I  c^ 


ce  o  o  o  c-i  *r  o 


ifi  oooc^-oceco 

iO  «  ic  "^  cr-  ^-  CI  to 

CC  »C  C:  ^_  CJ  CC  OO  ^_ 

Oi  CI  r^'  cj  i--'  o 

O  C>J         "  — ^ 


-OO     I 


ooooiCoocc»ft'^:o 

^fCCC-TfCCOO^CliOO 

^OOOCiOOC-lO^l^eCiC 

1—  —  (TC  rc  M  —       ^ 


CJ  "^  ifi  ^-  C-1  c 

00  00  ce  o  I—  c:  c; 
r  -  c".  »fr  re       ^-  c-i 


oi«o»coooooo 


000005DO 


ot-c-irrc-ice-^oo^ce 
r-coicicceccooce^-ce 


i.e  o  c;  «c  00  »c  00 

— '  tC  CJ  —  »C  tC  C?! 

:c  OO  ce  re  I--  ^  ce 


O     05 

■  r;  to 


ocece— i^cec;r^'«»o 

iOOCOC;:CO»COI--'— ' 

Oi  c  c;  — _  -^^  ce  to  d^  t-._  oo_ 
ic  oo'  oo'  r^'  »rr  o  ci'  »c  d'  tjT 


O 


d 


lO  t^»ooo 

—  ■*  00  CM 


ITS  O  O  O  iC  C-  00 


r^  »r;  »C  O  O  C".  OO 
■^  I—  C:  CJ  c:  ce  ^H 
■-*•  "^  ^-  l>.  I-  <M  ic 


oceci>c  —  ceoo>— ■ 
:c  »c  ci  -^__  :J:^  re_  r--  Tf 
1-h'  ^  ^  ci'  ce  "^'  r-' 


o  o  o  c:  00  00  o 
oc  o  ^r  »c  —  ».e  ■^ 

'■»■  :C  I-  Cl  ■—  -      "" 


o^ceocjo^CkC»o 

0»^tCi:DcCOO»C»r^C^5D 

o  c^  cj  t-  05  ^-  ce  CI  o  CO 
t— *  ^  c»  ce'  ci  c; '-'  CD  *r>'  ic 

CM  <M  ■*  (M  ^  ^         — 


--■      — '-*'  I  09 


o  o  c:  o  c  00  00 
»c  o  c  o  ce  »o  CM 

ce  'f?  ce  cj  c:  -^  r-- 


ooooo 
o  oo  o  >c 

0+++++ 

O  m  h-  -^  CD  >0 

_i  Tf  o  r^  t^  CM 

~r  o  -^  cC  Oi  r- 

»f^  CI  CM  ce  ^r  «o 


o  — 

++ 

ot~. 

CD  ^f 

o  ec 

CD«0 

p  o 


c  o  o  =  c  c 
^  o  o  c  o  o  o 


p^  ic  ^  C  r;  >^  ;i5 


i^        -3        d 


COtf5«Ot^Tj*CO»£5'''® 

+  r^050t^^-c^c^co 


•^    rj   a   «   C3   rt   C5 

e^  t£  bc  ex  bc  e^  b£ 


E-.       c. 


£  =  =  £  =  £  = 


.c    e- 


o  ■  a 


o 
o 

GO 


"   cS 


c  ^  <y  o 

T^  fc-    Ci   fc- 
h-    ^    ^    « 

«  b  li  i 

-    03   ''^    OJ 

^9ao  »-  o 

II   CS'^CD 
I-     M  O        - 

n  u  >Oao 
22  — 

° 


£  «  >  a 

=«  £  2  2 

o  rt  at  "• 

•nasi 


I""- 


V   c 

^ 


„    CJ 


-^    Gj    O    O 
J=  -C  -^ 

°  c  c  c 
>.  o  c  o 

-r  3  3  3 
CD  — -r;  "O 
C  ♦-  ♦J  -*J 
li:     C     O    CJ 

ozzz 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  TPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  95 

CANAL    LOSSES   AND    WASTE. 

Transportation  losses.  In  calcuhitiiiy  transportation  losses  it  was 
assumed  that  in  eoneretc-lincd  sections  tlie  loss  would  be  a1  the  rate 
of  0.3-foot  deptli  in  24  hours  over  the  entire  wetted  surface  of  the 
canal,  while  in  uuliiicd  s(>cti()iis  tlie  rate  of  loss  was  assumed  as  1.5 
feet  ])er  24  hour.s. 

Waste.  In  ji'encral,  waste  may  be  attributed  to  one  or  more  of 
four  principal  causes:  leaky  structures;  waste  by  the  farmer  at  the  end 
of  his  lateral;  canal  breaks;  and  waste  from  operation.  The  type  of 
construction  contemplated  would  insure  com])aratively  tight  structures 
and  few  bi'eaks.  Farm  waste  will  be  at  the  expense  of  the  water  user 
and  will,  therefore,  be  held  to  a  minimum.  Project  waste,  althou<;h  to 
some  extent  unavoidable,  would,  in  time  of  draft  on  storage,  be  held  to 
the  minimum  necessary  to  convey  the  project  water  supply  and  to 
comply  with  the  state's  avowed  policy  of  efficient  use  of  its  waters. 

The  following-  is  a  paragraph  copied  from  "Bulletin  No.  4,  Proceed- 
ings of  the  Second  Sacramento-San  Joaijuin  River  Problems  Confer- 
ence, and  Water  Sui)ervisor's  Rei)ort,  1924:" 

Early  in  June,  letters  to  all  water  users  on  the  Sar-ramento  River  above 
Sacramento  were  sent  out.  announcing  the  establishment  and  purpose  of 
the  water  supervisor's  office.  i)resenting  the  critical  water  situation  and  warn- 
ing that  where  waste  shcmld  be  found  on  any  project  it  would  be  neces.sary 
that  the  diversion  of  such  project  be  reduced  by  the  amount  of  such   waste. 

Disposition  of  waste  water.  A  large  percentage  of  any  waste 
from  the  Iron  Canyon  i)roject  would  reach  the  Colusa  Basin  to  be 
carried  through  the  main  drainage  ditch  through  the  basin  to  Knights 
Landing,  south  of  the  southern  extremity  of  the  ])ro])osed  jn'oject, 
where  it  can  not  enter  the  river  by  gravity  until  the  low  water  stage. 
(Refer  to  Knights  Landing  pum])  line  ]ihotogra])hs.)*  Prior  to  this 
time  it  would  be  carried  on  down  the  Yolo  By-pass  into  the  delta 
region.  Thus,  return  water  from  the  Iron  Canyon  ])rojeet  below 
Stony  Creek  will  not  reach  the  river,  from  which  it  could  be  diverted 
for  use  in  the  Sacramento  Valley,  exce])t  in  the  delta  region  below 
Knights  Landing.  It  would,  however,  become  available  for  use  in  the 
by-)iasses  or  for  transfer  to  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  if  such  transfer 
is  desirable. 

Irrigation  method.  On  account  of  the  long  carriage  system  for 
the  proposed  project,  without  any  regidating  reservoii's  along  the  line, 
it  appears  imi)erative  that  the  rotation  system  of  ii-rigation  be  ado])ted. 
If  this  is  done  there  would  probably  be  no  necessity  for  including  a 
factor  for  waste,  as  such,  since  a  very  generous  allowance  has  been  nmde 
in  designing  the  canal  sections,  as  exi)lained  later. 

Canal  designed  for  irrigation  peak.  It  is  (piite  common  ]n-actice 
to  increase  the  carrying  cai)acity  of  the  main  canal  by  about  10  per 
cent  over  the  average  daily  demand  foi-  the  month  of  nmximum  demand 
to  allow  for  the  irrigation  peak.  In  localities  whei-e  the  growth  of 
moss  and  other  vegetation  in  irrigation  canals  is  ])revalent,  as  is  the 
case  in  the  Sacramento  Valley,  diffictdty  is  often  exi)erienced  in  main- 
taining a  flow  that  will  meet  the  demands,  a.s  the  growth  of  vegetation 

*  Not  includt-d  in  printed  i-cport.  Films  on  file  in  office  of  the  Commissioner, 
Bureau  of  Reclamation,  Washington,  D.  C. 


96 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


has  reaclu'd  its  maxiiiiuni  at  the  time  of  maxiiuuin  demand  for  both 
water  and  labor.  In  an  endeavor  to  alleviate  this  eondition,  and  in 
order  that  the  maintenance  cost  of  the  canals  might  be  kept  down,  the 
canal  sections  have  been  desi<>-ned  with  a  i)eak  capacity  of  15  per  cent 
above  the  daily  averajjje  for  the  month  of  July,  assumino-  a  friction 
factor  of  0.015  for  concrete-lined  canals.  It  was  not  considered  neces- 
sary to  provide  for  waste  during  the  ii-rigation  peak,  which  usually 
only  lasts  from  ten  days  to  two  weeks.  Data  for  the  Orland  project 
nidicates  that  there  has  been  practically  no  waste  on  that  i)roject  during 
the  past  eight  years  in  the  months  of  July  and  August,  when  the 
demand  for  water  is  at  a  maximum. 

WATER  SUPPLY, 

Source.  The  source  of  water  for  use  on  the  proposed  project  is 
the  Sacramento  lliver  and  its  tributaries  entering  the  river  above  the 
city  of  Red  Bluff. 

Run-off.  Table  9  is  extracted  from  Table  46  appearing  on  page 
191  of  Bulletin  No.  5,  published  by  the  California  State  Division  of 
Engineering  and  Irrigation  in  1923 : 


TABLE  9.     SUMMARY  OF  ESTIMATED  RUN-OFF  OF  THE  SACRAMENTO 
RIVER  AT  RED  BLUFF  GAGING  STATION,  1871  TO  1921. 

Drainage  Area,  9258  Square  Miles. 

Season  begins  on  October  1  and  ends  on  September  30. 


Estimated 
tun-oft'  in 
acre-feet 


Depth 

in 
inches 


Acre-feet 

per 

square  mile 


Season 


Mean  seasonal 

Maximum  seasonal 

Minimum  seasonal 

Mean  during  July 

Maximum  during  July. . . 
Minimum  during  July. . . 

Mean  during  August.  . .  . 
Maximum  during  August 
Minimum  during  August, 


P,029,000 

22,700,000 

4,068,800 

397,200 

008,000 
175,t)00 

337,000 
771,800 
149,300 


20.10 

46.00 

8.20 

0.80 
1.80 
0.40 

0.70 
l.fiO 
0.30 


1,072 

2,452 

439 

43 

98 
19 

36 
83 
16 


1889-1890 
1919-1920 


1889-1890 
1874-1875 


1889-1890 
1874-1875 


Prior  to  May  1,  1895,  the  discharge  Avas  estimated.  From  May  1, 
1895,  to  February  1,  1902,  the  discharge  was  measured  at  Jelly's 
Ferry,  12  miles  above  Red  Bluff,  drainage  area  9093  square  miles. 
From  Februaiy  1,  1902,  to  date  the  discharge  has  been  measured  at 
the  United  States  Geological  Survey  gaging  station  about  4^  miles 
above  Red  Bluff  and  one-half  mile  above  the  site  of  the  proposed  Iron 
(-anyon  dam.  The  rating  curve  is  shown  on  Plate  5.  In  Table  9 
the  discharge  at  the  two  points  of  measurements  is  assumed  to  be  the 
same  since  the  tributary  area  between  them  is  not  productive  of  appreci- 
able run-off. 

The  run-off  estimated  in  Table  9  is  the  total  from  the  drainage  area. 
The  discharges  as  measured  at  the  gaging  stations,  subsequent  to  1895, 
are  somewhat  less  than  the  estimated  total  run-off  as  the  former  has 
been  adjusted  to  take  account  of  storage  and  irrigation  above  the 
points  of  measurement.    As  shown  in  Bulletin  No.  5,  upstream  storage 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


97 


has  increased  until  in  1921  it  uiuounteil  to  121,900  acre-feet.  Irrigation 
had  increased  to  161,000  acres  in  1920-21.  In  the  season  1919-20, 
in  which  the  niinimuni  seasonal  run-oft"  np  to  that  time  occurred,  the 
measured  discharge  at  Eod  BIulT  <;a<iiny  staliou  was  o,788,100  acre- 
feet  in  comparison  with  tlie  adjusted  total  of  4,068,800  acre-feet.  In 
the  season  1923-24,  the  measured  seasonal  discharge  from  October  1, 
1923,  to  September  30,  1924,  was  only  2,972,000  acre-feet,  the  lowest 
of  record  and  about  30  per  cent  of  normal.  The  measured  run-off 
in  July  and  August,  1924,  was  178,000  acre-feet  in  each  month,  some- 
what greater  than  the  adjusted  minimum  run-off  showui  in  Table  9 
for  the  same  two  months. 

Basis  of  estimated  supply.  The  studies  of  water  supply  for  the 
Iron  Canyon  project  have  been  based  upon  the  measured  discharge 
from  1895  to  1924,  inclusive,  without  attempting  adjustments  for 
diversions  higlier  up  on  the  river.  The  records  are  affected  somewhat 
by  diversions  and  storage  above,  the  correction  necessary  to  adjust 
the  water  supply  to  conditions  of  present  irrigation  development 
gradually  decreasing  yearly  from  the  date  of  the  earliest  records  down 
to  the  present  time.  As  the  most  critical  years  of  water  supply  are 
recent  (1919-20  and  1923-24),  when  irrigation  development  approxi- 
mated very  closely  that  of  the  present  time,  depletion  due  to  past 
upstream  diversions  have  been  neglected. 

Xo  account  has  been  taken  of  the  effect  of  future  depletion  upon  the 
assumption  that  use  will  be  made  of  the  applications  now  on  file  for  the 
Iron  Canyon  project. 


Monthly  distribution. 

TABLE  10.  ASSUMED  MONTHLY  DISTRIBUTION  OF  IRRIGATION 
WATER  FOR  IRON  CANYON  PROJECT  IN  PER  CENT  OF  THE  SEA- 
SONAL SUPPLY. 

From  page  G3,  Bulletin  No.  6,  State  Department  of  Public  Works. 


Month 


Per  cent 


Month 


Per  cent 


January. 
February 
March. . 

April 

May .... 
June. . . . 


0 
0 
1 
.5 
16 
20 


July 

August 

September 
October. . , 
November 
December. 


22 

20 

12 

4 

0 

0 


The  distribution  is  based  upon  all  available  records  of  actual  use  of 
irrigation  water.  The  values  sliown  are  those  which  are  believed  to  be 
most  adapta])le  to  plant  requircnnents,  upon  the  assumption  that  the 
schedulf  can  be  attained  through  an  adecpiate  storage  system. 

Iron  Canyon  project  filings.  Applications  on  (il(>  on  behalf  of  the 
Iron  Canyon  project  are  as  folh)ws : 

Application  No.  1279  filed  by  W.  A.  Board  for  tho  Iron  Canyon  I'rojcct 
Association  May  10,  1911).  Asks  for  2500  cubic  feet  per  second  from  March 
1st  to  November  30th  and  for  775,100  acre-feet  per  annum  between  November 
30th  and  May  1st,  all  for  agricultural  purposes,  to  be  used  on  approximately 
284,000  acres  of  land  in  Sacramento  Valley  in  Tehama,  Glenn,  Colusa  and 
Butte  counties. 
7—50667 


98  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

Applu-atioii  No.  1280  lilfd  in  the  saino  iiiune  ami  the  same  day  fur  power 
imrposi's.  AsUs  for  (J(K)()  .srcoiid-feet  direct  diversion  from  .January  1st  to 
I^ecemlicr  .">lst  and  for  77"),  100  acre-fi'et  to  Iir  colh-cted  lietween  November 
3(lth   and   May   1st  of  eacli  season. 

Prior  rights.  Exliibit  8  coiitaius  extracts  from  a  paper  read  by 
Mr.  p]dward  Hyatt,  Jr.,  Chief  of  Division  of  Water  Rights,  California 
State  Department  of  Public  Works,  before  the  Fifth  Annual  Conven- 
tion of  the  California  Section  of  the  American  Waterworks  Association 
at  Sacramento  on  October  24,  1924,  and  at  a  gathering  of  persons 
interested  in  the  Iron  Canyon  project  at  Red  Bluff,  on  October  25,  1924. 
It  is  believed  that  the  extracts  cover  the  subject  of  water  rights  and 
uses  in  the  Sacramento  Valle}-  quite  clearly  and  authoritatively. 

Future  projects  in  the  Sacramento  \'alley,  depending  upon  the 
natural  flow  of  the  river  for  their  irrigation  water,  are  iufeasible. 
Even  with  provision  made  for  storage  of  the  winter  flood  waters, 
any  study  of  a  new  project  must  take  into  consideration  prior  riglits 
which  may  be  granted  through  an  overriding  oi:  section  11  of  the 
Water  Commission  Act,  and  of  the  action  which  the  federal  government 
may  take  relative  to  the -release  of  water  for  navigation.  There  is  no 
assurance  that  the  outcome  of  the  situation  will  be  favorable  to  new 
projects  but  there  is  reason  to  believe  tluit  the  solution  will  be  along 
rational  lines. 

In  a  paper  read  at  the  Sacramento-San  Joaquin  River  Problems 
Conference  in  December,  1924,  U.  S.  Grant  3d,  Major,  Corps  of  Engi- 
neers, U.  S.  Arm3%  District  Engineer,  Second  District,  stated  that 
measurements  made  during  the  summer  of  1924  show  that  from  3500 
to  4000  second-feet  are  needed  in  the  river  to  maintain  navigation 
(above  Sacramento)  on  an  economic  basis. 

It  is  imperative  tiiat  navigation  of  the  Sacramento  River  be  main- 
tained. If  the  proposed  salt  water  barrier  below  the  confluence  of  the 
Sacramento  and  San  Joaquin  rivers  is  constructed,  w^ater  required  for 
its  operation  will  probably  be  much  less  tlian  3500  second-feet.  There 
is,  in  the  two  valleys,  an  incentive  toward  conservation  of  water  since 
the  potential  value  of  the  lands  to  be  deprived  of  irrigation  water  to 
supply  the  needs  of  navigation  in  the  amount  suggested  by  Major 
Grant  will,  in  time,  be  of  economic  importance,  and  it  seems  possible 
that  navigation  of  the  river  could  be  provided  for  in  some  other  way. 
In  any  event,  the  Iron  Canyon  project  would  not  be  aft'ectcd  material!}', 
unless  court  decisions  .should  upliold  tlie  claim  of  riparian  users  relative 
to  the  use  of  flood  waters,  since,  in  a  low  year  about  90  per  cent  of  the 
seasons'  supply  would  come  from  storage.  If  the  courts  liold  tliat 
riparian  (nvncrs  can  store  water  in  reservoirs  by  reason  of  tlieir 
riparian  rights  it  will  effectually  destroy  tlie  value  of  appropriative 
rights.  This  question  is  now  before  the  Supreme  Court  for  decision  in 
the  case  of  Hcr»iivfihousr  vs.  Southern  California  Edison  Co. 

The  Nebraska  court  liolds  tluit  as  tlie  right  of  a  riparian  proprietor 
to  the  use  of  water  of  a  .stream  is  an  integral  part  of  the  land,  it  is 
witliin  the  constitutional  guaranties  of  private  property  and  can  not 
be  taken  awav  bv  an  act  of  the  legislature,  (lark  vs.  Cambridge  etc. 
Co.,  45  Xeb.  798  \  64  X.  W.  239.  The  Supreme  Court  of  South  Dakota, 
in  a  much  later  case,  said  in  St.  Germain  Irr.  Co.  vs.  Hawthorn  Bitch 
Company,  32  S.  Dak.  260 ;  143  N.  W.  124 : 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


99 


A  riparian  wator  rij;lil  L-aii  imt  In'  IdsI,  1).\  disuse,  aiul  a  slaliilc  iimvidiiig 
tiiat  when  a  party  entitled  to  tiie  iise  of  water  fails  to  use  all  m-  any  portion 
of  the  waters  claimed  by  him  for  a  period  of  three  years,  such  unused  waters 
shall  I'evert  to  the  i)ul)lic,  is  void  as  to  a  rii)arian  owner  as  deprlvin};  him 
of  vested  rigiits,  though  v.ilid  ;is  to  one  claiming  only  hy  appropriation. 

Amount  of  water  assumed  to  supply  prior  rights.  On  page  46  of 
the  proceedings  of  the  Sacramento  River  Problems  Conference,  held 
at  Sacramento,  January  25  and  26,  1924,  .Mr.  Donald  Baker  of  tlie 
Division  of  Water  Kights  states: 

It  will  be  seen  that  there  are  at  present  existing  rights  upon  the  river 
above  the  delta,  which  would  probably  be  confirmed  in  any  adjudication 
thereof,  totaling  approximately  .">()00  second-feet.  Approval  of  and  confirma- 
tion of  beneficial  use  under  unapproved  pending  applications  in  this  section 
of  the  river  would  increase  this  to  oGtK)  second-feet,  and  should  the  owners 
of  unused  riparian  rights  be  allowed  to  exercise  same  in  the  future  through 
an  overruling  of  section  11  of  the  Water  Commission  Act  by  the  Supreme 
Court,  this  might  be  increased  to  7000-8000  second-feet,  depending  upon  the 
duty   allowed   riparian  (jwners. 

In  tlu'  table  at  the  bottom  of  page  46  of  the  report  referred  to  above, 
the  flow  for  July,  1916,  assumed  to  be  an  average  year,  is  6680  second- 
feet.  Taking  the  average  July  flow  for  all  years  of  record  prior  to 
1922,  however,  the  quantity  is  found  to  be  5790  second-feet;  and  if 
tlie  period  be  extended  to  include  July,  1924,  the  average  will  be  found 
to  be  5580  second-feet.  The  average  flow  for  July,  1924,  was  2870 
second-feet,  the  minimum  being  2800  second-feet.  An  assumed  average 
July  flow  of  6000  second-feet  to  supply  prior  rights  below  the  proposed 
Iron  Canyon  reservoir  appears  to  be  fair  and  on  the  side  of  safety 
considering  availability  of  water  for  use  on  the  Iron  Canyon  project. 

Assuming  that  the  monthly  distribution  of  water  to  supply  prior 
rights  is  identical  with  that  shown  in  Table  10  for  the  Iron  Canyon 
project,  and  further  that  the  discharge  to  supply  prior  rights  is  at 
the  rate  of  6000  second-feet  in  July,  the  total  seasonal  allowance  to 
supply  prior  rights  is  found  to  be  1,677,000  acre-feet  distributed  as 
shown  in  Table  11. 


TABLE  11.     ASSUMED  MONTHLY  DISTRIBUTION  OF  WATER  TO 

SUPPLY  PRIOR  RIGHTS. 

Provided  that  the  free  flow  of  the  river  above  Iron  Canyon  dam  is  oijual  to  or  greater  than  the  amounts  shown. 


Month 


.January. 
February 
Mareh .  . 
.\rril.... 
May. . . . 
.June. .  . . 


.\cro-feet       Second-feet 


0 

0 

16.770 

8.'5,8.50 

208,.320 

3.35,400 


0 

0 

273 

1.364 

4.364 

.5,45.") 


Month 


July 

.\ugiist ... 
September 
October.  . 
November 
December . 


Acre-feet       Second-feet 


368.940 

335,400 

201.240 

67,080 

0 

0 


6,000 
5,455 
3,273 
1,091 
0 
0 


Actually,  there  have  been  only  six  years  of  the  29  of  record  when 
the  above  supply  would  have  been  available.  During  21}  years  there 
woidd  have  been  shortages  in  August ;  19  with  shortages  in  July  and 
August;  5  shortages  in  June,  July  and  Augu.st;  and  in  1928-24  .short- 
ages would  have  occurred  from  May  to  September,  inclusive.  The 
average  July  flow  of  5580  second-feet  lias  been  equaled,  or  exceeded, 


100  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

in  l'\  of  the  29  years  while  tlic  6000  second-feet  assumed  in  the  studies 
has  been  equaled,  or  exceeded,  durinji:  oidy  10  of  the  21)  years  of  record. 

Relation  of  run-off  and  assumed  irrigation  requirements.  The  run- 
otf  of  the  Sacramento  Kiver  at  tlie  United  States  CJeolof^ical  Survey  gag- 
ing station  above  Red  Bluif  for  an  average  year ;  for  a  low  year ;  and  for 
the  lowest  year  of  record  is  shown  graphically  on  Plate  7.  The  require- 
ments of  prior  rights  according  to  the  distribution  shown  in  Table  11, 
and  of  the  Iron  Canyon  project  according  to  the  assumi)tions  made  in 
the  study  of  duty  of  water,  distributed  as  shown  in  Table  10,  are  shown 
by  liatched  areas.  It  will  be  noted  that  in  an  average  year  the  natural 
run-off  is  sufficient  to  supply  the  assumed  prior  rights  with  the  excep- 
tion of  a  small  deficiency  in  August.  Storage  of  winter  flood  water  is 
necessary  to  supply  the  Iron  Canyon  project.  In  the  season  1919-20 
the  run-off,  without  storage,  would  not  have  fully  supplied  prior  rights 
from  June  to  August,  inclusive,  and  in  the  season  1923-24  the  supply 
for  prior  rights,  without  storage,  was  deficient  from  May  to  September, 
inclusive.  By  comparing  the  run-off  and  total  assumed  demands  for 
1923-24,  as  represented  by  tlie  respective  areas  on  the  diagram,  it  will 
be  seen  that  the  supply  would  have  satisfied  the  assumed  demands,  the 
former  being  2,972,000  acre-feet  and  the  latter  2,477,000.  However, 
storage  Avould  have  been  necessary  both  for  the  Iron  Canyon  project 
and  to  supply  prior  rights,  and  storage  would  have  introduced  a 
diminished  irrigation  supply  by  reason  of  evaporation  losses  from  the 
reservoir.  There  was  a  shortage  of  irrigation  water  in  1920  and  again 
in  1924.  It  will  be  recalled  tliat  in  July,  1924,  the  discharge  at  Red 
Bluff  dropped  to  2800  second-feet  and,  according  to  the  assumptions 
made  in  the  studies  of  water  supply,  the  flow  to  supply  prior  rights 
would  not  be  increased  through  the  construction  of  Iron  Canyon  reser- 
voir, to  a  quantity  greater  than  the  natural  flow  of  the  river. 

It  is  apparent  that  in  years  of  low  run-oft'  the  water  supply  for 
Sacramento  Vallej"  under  present  conditions  is  deficient.  The  situa- 
tion would  become  more  serious  should  section  11  of  the  Water  Com- 
mission Act  be  overruled,  or  should  the  federal  government  insist  upon 
the  release  of  water  for  navigation.  The  situation  would  be  relieved 
through  the  construction  of  large  holdover  reservoirs  above  Red  Bluff, 
providing  rulings  regarding  riparian  rights  did  not  interfere  with 
storage  in  such  reservoirs. 

Evaporation  from  reservoir.  Tlie  net  loss  of  water  by  evaporation 
from  the  reservoir  is  approximately  10  per  cent  of  the  amount  available 
for  irrigation,  if  the  lower  portion  of  the  reservoir  is  reserved  to  main- 
tain head  for  power  purposes.  While  there  are  many  records  of 
evaporation  from  pans,  very  little  data  have  been  gathered  to  determine 
the  relation  between  pan  measui-omeTits  and  the  true  loss  from  lake  sur- 
faces. On  pages  61-63,  Bulletin  No.  !).  1920,  "Water  Resources  of  Kern 
River,"  published  by  the  California  State  Department  of  Engineering, 
are  given  the  results  of  measurements  of  pan  and  lake  surface  evapora- 
tion at  Buena  Vista  Lake,  and  of  lake  surface  evaporation  at  Tulare 
Lake.  On  page  79  of  the  report  on  the  San  Jacinto  River  Il.vdro- 
graphic  Investigation,  1922,  by  the  California  State  Division  of  Water 
Rights,  the  results  of  observations  at  Lake  Elsinore  are  given.  The 
results  of  these  measurements  are  given  in  Table  12.    The  quantities  are 


DEVELOPMENT  OP  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


101 


in  feet  and  represent  tlic  tolal  or  jjross  evaporation,  wliicli,  to  obtain  the 
net  loss,  would  be  redneod  1)\'  llic  depth  of  rainfall.  They  represent  the 
average  at  Tulare  Lake,  six-year  avci-age  at  Lake  Elsinore,  the  year 
1920  at  Buena  Vista,  and  a  lo-year  average  at  East  Park  reservoir.  In 
Ihe  last  column  the  gross  amount  that  was  used  in  the  studies  of  the 
Iron  Canyon  water  supply  is  shown. 


TABLE  12.     EVAPORATION  FROM  RESERVOIR. 

Quantities  shown  represent  gross  evaporation  in  feet. 


Lake 

Elsinore 

Buena  Vista 
Lake 

Tulare 
Lake 

East  Park  reservoir 

Used  in 
Iron  Canyon 

studies 

Month 

Floating 
pan 

'80  per  cent 
of  observa- 
tion pan 

October 

.45 
.30 
.20 
.15 
.05 
.25 
.40 
.45 
.50 
.()0 
.60 
.55 

.38 
.16 
.09 
.12 
.16 
.18 
.42 
.62 
.6.3 
.62 
.58 
.59 

.30 
.20 
.10 
.12 
.13 
.25 
.30 
.50 
.70 
.80 
.60 
.60 

.37 
.20 
.13 
.09 
.14 
.23 
.40 
.61 
.69 
.88 
.82 
.61 

.30 
.16 
.10 
.08 
.11 
.18 
..32 
.49 
.55 
.71 
.65 
.49 

.34 

November 

.18 

December 

.095 

Januarj' 

.12 

February 

.145 

March 

.215 

April 

.36 

May 

..56 

June 

.665 

July 

.74 

August 

.59 

September  

.595 

Totals 

4.50 

4.55 

4.60 

5.17 

4.14 

4.605 

'Assumed  as  relation  between  pan  and  open  water  surface. 

The  elevation  at  Iron  Canyon  reservoir  is  practically  the  same  as  at 
Buena  Vista  and  Tulare  lakes,  and  as  temperature  conditions,  during 
the  seven  warm  months  when  84  per  cent  of  the  evaporation  takes  place, 
are  practically  the  same  at  the  three  places,  it  is  believed  that  the 
average  of  the  gross  evaporation  at  Buena  Vista  and  Tulare  lakes  is 
applicable  to  Iron  Canyon  reservoir. 

In  the  studies  made,  the  effect  of  rain  has  been  considered  as  reducing 
the  evaporation  shown  in  Table  12.  The  gain  due  to  rainfall  is  not  the 
total  amount  of  rain  on  the  reservoir  surface,  but  is  only  that  portion 
of  it  which  has  not  appeared  as  run-off  in  the  records  of  stream  flow  at 
Red  Bluff.  No  rainfall  run-off  curve  has  been  constructed  for  the  Sac- 
ramento River,  and  it  probably  is  not  feasible  to  construct  one  with 
existing  data.  To  determine  the  accretion  to  reservoir  supply  from 
rainfall,  the  curve  published  by  C.  E.  Grunsky  on  page  85,  Transactions 
of  the  A.  S.  C.  E.  for  1922,  has  been  used.  This  has  been  redrawn  on 
Plate  6  to  show  depth  of  monthly,  instead  of  annual,  precipitations. 
Results  obtained  from  the  use  of  this  curve  are  approximate,  but  a 
comparatively  large  error  in  the  rainfall  factor  Avould  aft'ect  the  final 
result  but  little. 

Water  to  supply  demands  of  irrigation  and  power  development  at 
the  storage  dam.  The  development  of  ])()wer  has  an  important  bear- 
ing upon  the  feasibility  of  the  Iron  Canyon  project,  since  the  revenue 
to  be  derived  from  its  sale  may  be  used  in  the  repayment  of  a  part  of 
the  construction  costs,  as  will  be  demonstrated  in  the  section  dealing 
with  power.  The  studies  of  water  supply,  therefore,  take  into  account 
the  amount  of  power  jjossible  of  development  at  the  storage  dam. 


102 


WATER  RESOURCES  OP  CALIFORNIA. 


Althoiigli  i)Ower  develo{)ment  is  a  secondary  consideration,  an  effort 
v;as  made  to  jrct  as  mucli  power  out  of  the  plant  as  compatible  with 
irri<>atioii  reciuirements. 

Five  studies  of  water  sui)ply  wei'e  made  on  the  basis  of  various 
assumptions  as  to  irri<i:ation  and  power  drafts.  The  details  of  each 
study  are  shown  in  Tables  13*  to  17.*  inclusive,  appearing  in 
Appendix  B. 

The  succession  of  years  of  low  run-off  since  the  1920  report  was 
prepared  will  materially  affect  the  results  to  be  obtained  from  any 
study,  including  the  1923-24  season.  An  examination  of  the  studies 
made  will  show  that  the  possibilities  of  power  development  at  the 
storage  dam  hinge  upon  a  season  like  tluit  of  1923-24,  when  90  per  cent 
of  the  irrigation  supply  for  the  project  must  have  come  from  storage, 
since  no  free  flow  in  the  river  was  available  after  the  month  of  April 
for  nse  on  the  project.  Assuming  that  irrigation  requirements  are 
paramount,  tliat  a  season  like  1923-24  may  occur  at  any  time  and  that 
the  operators  can  not  foretell  in  October  what  the  seasonal  run-off  will 
be,  it  is  evident  that  the  outpnt  of  primary  poAver  during  the  fall  and 
winter  months  is  limited  to  the  amount  that  can  be  produced  by  a  flow 
that  can  safely  be  drawn  from  the  reservoir  with  assurance  that  it 
would  be  full  at  the  beginning  of  the  succeeding  irrigation  season. 

The  ])otential  primary  power  under  Study  No.  2  is  greater  than  in 
Study  No.  1,  for  the  reason  that  in  the  former  there  would  Iiave  been  a 
lioldover  of  126,000  acre-feet  from  the  previous  season,  while  in  the 
latter  the  reservoir  in  the  previous  season  would  have  been  drawn  down 
to  the  minimum  allowable.  Tlie  126,000  acre-feet  holdover  not  only 
reduced  the  amount  of  water  to  be  stored  in  1923-24,  thus  allowing  a 
larger  power  draft  than  is  permissible  in  Study  No.  1,  but  the  extra 
water  in  the  reservoir  resulted  in  an  increased  head  on  the  power  plant. 

Following  is  a  summary  of  Avater  and  power  shortages  according  to 
the  studies  made : 


STUDY  No.  1. 

rrrigatioii  draft 1.000.000  acre-feet 

Maximiun  water  surface  in  reservoir El.  400 

Minimum  water  surface  in  reservoir Kl.  3,53 

Storage  reserved  for  creating  power  head 214,000  acre-feet 

Storage  availalile  for  supplying  irrigation  demand 747,300  acre-feet 

Powc-  draft  till  reservoir  is"full<?3,600  c.  f.  s.  x  100'  head=32,700  h.p.  at  80  per  cent  efficiency. 


Year 

Month 

Irrigation 
shortage 

Per  cent 
seasonal 
supply 

Power 

shortage, 

horsepower 

Per  cent  of 
asstimed 
minimum 

1917-18 

September 

September 

Seoteraber 

11.000 

108,700 

34.100 

83.100 

120,000 

1.2 

10.9 
3.4 

ll;o}    20.3 

1919-20 

1922-23 

1923-24 

August 

5,700 
'1,500± 

1923-24 

September 

October  

17.5 

1924-25 

4  6± 

'Table  13  is  not  extended  to  include  this  item. 


*  Tables   not   printed   to   save   space.      These   are    on    file   at    office    of   Division    of 
Engineering  and  Irrigation  and  may  be  con.sulted  there. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


103 


STUDY  No.  2. 

Irrigtition  draft  for  project 800,000  acre-feet 

Maximum  water  surface  in  reservoir El.  400 

Mir.imum  water  surface  in  reservoir El.  3,53 

Storage  reserved  for  oreat ing  power  head 214.000  acre-feet 

Storage  availalile  for  supplying  irrigation  demand 747,300  acre-feet 

Power  draft  till  reservoir  is  fullo  4,200  c.  f.  s.  x  100'  head  ^  38,200  h.p.  at  80  per  cent  efficiency. 


Year 

Month 

Irrigation 
shortage 

Per  cent 
seasonal 
supply 

Power 

shortage, 
horsepower 

Per  cent  of 

assumed 
minimum 

1023-24 

September 

October 

28,200 

3.5 

1924-25   

*7,000± 

18± 

*TabIe  14  is  not  extended  to  include  this  item. 


STUDY  No.  3. 

Irrigation  draft  for  project 800,000  acre-feet 

Maximum  water  surface  in  reservoir El.  400 

Minimum  water  surface  in  reservoir El.  363 

Storage  reserved  for  creating  power  head 302,000  acre-feet 

Storage  available  for  supplying  irrigation  demand 659,300  acre-feet 

Power  draft  till  reservoir  is  fullo4,200  c.  f.  s.  x  110'  he.ad=42,000  h.p.  at  80  per  cent  efficiency. 


Year 

Month 

Irrigation 
shortage 

Per  cent 
seasonal 
supply 

Power 

shortage, 
horsepower 

Per  cent  of 
assumed 
minimum 

1919-20     

September 

July 

23,200 

37,200 

160.000 

96,000 

2.9 

4.01 

20.0^    36.6 
12. OJ 

1923-24 

192.3-24 

12,000 
12,. 500 
*8,000± 

.30.7 

1923-24 

September 

Octoljer 

29.8 

1924-25 

19    ± 

*Table  15  is  not  extended  to  include  this  item. 


STUDY  No.  4. 

Irrigation  draft  for  project 800,000  acre-feet 

Maximum  v.'ater  surface  in  reservoir El.  400 

Minimum  water  siu-face  in  reservoir El.  373 

Storage  reserved  for  creating  power  head 425,300  acre-feet 

Storage  available  for  supplying  irrigation  demand 536,000  acre-feet 

Power  draft  till  reservoir  is  fullo4,200  c.  f.  s.  x  120'  head=;45,900  h.p.  at  80  per  cent  efficiency. 


Year 

Month 

Irrigation 
shortage 

Per  cent 
seasonal 
supply 

Power 

shortage, 
horsepower 

Per  cent  of 
assumed 
minimum 

•1899-00 

September 

September 

September 

.August    

12,300 
14,800 
32,200 
11,200 
38,000 
1,400 
63,600 
47,500 
96,000 

1.5 
1.9 
i  0 

♦1900-01 

•1902-03     

1017-18 

1.41 
4.8 
0.21 
8.01 
5.91 
12.  OJ 

6.2 

8.2 

17.9 

September 

August    

1917-18 

2,900 

8,900 
2,300 

1918-19 

1918-19 

September 

August 

6.3 

1919-20 

19.4 

1919-20 

September 

October 

1920-21 

5.0 

1921-22 

September 

September 

5,100 
86,000 

0.6 
10.8 

1922-23 

6,900 

1,100 

1,800 

6,900 

14,200 

I       13,700 

••8,900± 

15.0 

1923-24 

2.4 

1923-24 

3.9 

1923-24 

July 

138,166 

160,000 

90,000 

i7.3] 

20. 0).    49.3 

12. OJ 

15.0 

1923-24 

30.9 

1923-24 

September 

October 

29.9 

1924-25 

19.4 

•.Shortages  determined  by  inspection  of  Study  No.  2  noting  elevation  of  water  surface  in  reservoir. 
"Table  16  js  not  extended  to  include  this  item. 


104 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


STUDY  No.  5. 

Irrigation  draft  for  project 800,000  aere-fcet 

Maximum  water  surface  in  reservoir F.l.  405.5 

Nlininuiiii  water  surface  in  reservoir El.  3t'8.0 

Storage  reserved  for  creating  power  head 304.600  acre-feet 

Storage  available  for  supplying  irrigation  demand 757,300  acre-feet 

Power  draft  till  reservoir  is  fullo4,200  c.  f.  s.  x  115'  head=43,900  h.p.  at  80  per  cent  efficiency. 


Year 

Month 

Irrigation 
shortage 

Per  cent 
seasonal 
supply 

Power 

shortage, 

horsepower 

Per  cent  of 
assumed 
minimum 

1923-24       

September 

October  

30,600 

3.8 

1,700 
»9,400± 

4  0 

1923-24   

21     ± 

*Table  17  is  not  extended  to  include  this  item. 


Reservoir  draft  suggested  as  most  practicable.  Tiie  plan  con- 
templated in  Study  No.  2  is  ai)pai'ently  tlie  better.  The  figures  shown 
are  modified  slightly  in  the  plan  recommended  for  adoption,  as  will  be 
shown  in  the  discus.sion  of  ])0wer.  Wore  it  not  for  tlie  uncertain  status 
of  riparian  rlglits,  a  project  with  a  draft  of  1,000,000  acre-feet  might 
be  the  economical  choice.  Because  of  tliis  uncertainty,  however,  the 
project  should  be  so  lined  up  that  the  additional  200,000  acre-feet 
could  be  used  on  a  separate  unit  rather  than  to  build  a  main  canal,  with 
a  possibility  that  it  could  not  be  used  to  full  capacit.y.  The  granting, 
by  an  overruling  of  Section  11  of  the  Water  Commission  Act,  of  unde- 
veloped riparian  rights,  both  on  the  Pit  and  below  Iron  Canyon,  might 
have  a  material  effect  on  either  project,  but  the  effect  would  be  more 
serious  for  the  larger  project,  as  it  must  depend  to  a  greater  extent  on 
the  free  flow  of  the  river  in  tlie  earlier  irrigation  months  to  function 
witlioiit  shortage. 

Should  Section  11  of  the  Water  Commission  Act  be  uplield,  it  is 
possible  that  the  larger  draft  would  be  feasible,  in  which  case  there 
would  ordinarily  be  200,000  acre-feet  of  water  available  for  diversion 
either  at  the  diversion  dam,  for  use  on  an  extended  project  by  enlarging 
the  main  canal,  or  for  diversion  at  some  other  point,  or  points,  along 
the  river.  The  additional  draft  might  be  used  to  supply  miscellaneous 
small  areas  along  the  river,  for  Avhicli  pumps  are  in  many  cases  now 
installed,  but  for  which  the  present  water  supply  is  deficient ;  to  supply 
lands  on  the  east  side  of  the  valley  lying  between  Tehama  and  Chico, 
either  by  pumping  from  the  river  near  Tehama,  or  by  siphoning  across 
the  river  from  the  proposed  west  side  canal ;  or  to  supply  an  equal  area 
in  the  vicinity  of  Woodland  by  pumping  from  the  river  at  Knights 
Landing.  Surveyed  canals  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  last  two 
proposals  are  shoAvn  on  the  project  map,  Plate  2. 

The  allowance  made  for  prior  rights  is  considerably  in  excess  of  the 
natural  average  flow  in  the  river  for  the  month  of  July,  at  the  time  the 
irrigation  demand  is  a  maximum,  and  although  the  outcome  of  the 
water  situation  can  not  be  predicted,  it  is  not  probable  that  a  future 
court  decree  would  be  detrimental  to  the  Iron  Canyon  project  (unless 
the  ruling  should  be  that  riparian  rights  ai)ply  to  flood  waters  as  well 
as  summer  flow),  since  the  project's  suiijily  would  come  from  storage 
during  months  when  there  is  a  shortage  in  the  free  flow  to  supply  prior 
righls.  The  effect  upon  the  project  of  a  movement  to  increase  the  flow 
for  purposes  of  navigation  can  not  be  foreseen, 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  105 

Irrigation  shortages.  Study  No.  2  indicates  that  in  the  1923-24 
season  the  project  avouUI  liave  suffered  a  shortage  of  about  30  per  cent 
of  the  September  supply,  or  less  than  4  per  cent  of  the  seasonal  supply. 
In  actual  operation  the  shortage  could  have  been  distributed  through- 
out the  irrigation  season,  for  it  was  known  early  that  an  extremely  dry 
year  was  to  be  encountered. 

Reservoir  operation.  Giraphs  of  operation  of  the  Iron  Canyon 
reservoir  are  shown  on  Plate  8.  The  first  column  of  graphs  on  the  left 
represents  the  operation,  according  to  Study  No.  2,  for  an  average  year ; 
a  low  year,  such  as  1919-20;  and  the  lowest  year  of  record,  assuming  an 
800,000  acre-feet  annual  draft.  In  the  second  column,  Study  No.  2  is 
shown  as  modified  by  Study  No.  5,  which  assumes  storage  in  the  reser- 
voir to  elevation  405. ,5,  instead  of  to  elevation  400.  Similar  graphs, 
representing  Study  No.  1  and  its  modification,  are  shown  in  the  third 
and  fourth  columns.  The  suggested  best  plan  is  represented  by  the 
graphs  in  the  second  column. 

Auxiliary  water  supply.  The  most  important  tributaries  entering 
the  Sacramento  River  on  the  west  side  are  Thomes,  Stony,  Cache  and 
Putah  creeks.  See  Plate  2.  These  streams  usually  have  large  flows 
during  the  winter  and  spring,  but  the  summer  flow  diminishes  to 
almost  nothing.  They  were  all  dry  in  1924.  The  first  two  only  cross 
the  proposed  project.  No  attempt  has  been  made  to  increase  the  water 
supply  for  the  project  from  these  and  other  small  water  courses  crossed 
by  the  main  canal,  as  they  carry  little,  if  any,  water  at  a  time  when  it 
would  be  of  benefit  to  the  project.  Neglecting  to  take  account  of  water 
derived  from  this  source  is  on  the  safe  side  as  far  as  water  supply  is 
concerned. 

Diversion  from  return  floAV  and  pumping  from  ground  water  have 
not  been  definitely  disposed  of,  since  there  are  so  many  dispositions 
which  might  be  made  of  them.  It  has  been  thought  best  to  leave  the 
matter  of  final  disposition  to  be  worked  out  at  the  time  the  water 
available  from  these  two  sources  is  required  for  further  development. 
This  also  is  on  the  safe  side  as  far  as  water  supply  and  duty  of  water 
are  concerned. 

Return  water.  Regardless  of  the  size,  or  location  of  the  project, 
there,  ultimately,  will  be  a  return  flow  that  would  be  available  for  use 
on  lands  to  be  included  in  a  project  extension  supplied  with  M'ater  by 
pumping  at  Knights  Landing ;  or  which  could  be  used  to  supply  riparian 
rights  in  the  delta  region  below^  Sacramento ;  or,  like  waste  water,  could 
be  used  to  supply  lands  in  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  if  the  transfer  of 
Sacramento  River  water  to  that  vallej^  becomes  desirable. 

Irrigation  development  in  Calif oi-nia  has  reached  a  stage  where  the 
recovery  of  waste,  seepage  and  return  water,  has  assumed  a  prominent 
position.  In  the  Sacramento  Valley  a  large  portion  of  the  return  flow 
follows  the  troughs  in  the  basin  on  either  side  of  the  river,  and  is  carried 
to  the  river  in  definite  clianuels  at  points  fairly  well  down  stream.  Most 
of  the  return  water  from  the  proposed  Iron  Canyon  project,  if  allowed 
to  flow  by  gravity,  will  find  its  way  into  Colusa  Basin,  thence  to  the 
river  at  Knights  Landing  by  way  of  Sycamore  Slough  or  on  down  the 
Yolo  By-pass, 


106  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

On  page  166  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Second  Sacramento-San 
Joaquin  River  Problems  Conference,  tlie  water  supervisor  reports  that 
the  total  return  tlow  from  lied  IJluil'  to  Sacramento,  for  the  four  months, 
June  to  September,  1924,  amounted  to  33  ])er  cent  of  the  diversions  in 
that  period  on  the  same  stretch  of  river.  The  return  flow  above  Butte 
City  was  11  per  cent ;  above  Colusa  18  per  cent ;  above  Knights  Landing 
31  per  cent  and  above  Sacramento  33  per  cent. 

While  there  might  be  objection  upon  the  part  of  some  irrigators  to 
the  use  of  return  water,  it  is  probable  that  due  to  the  high  value  of 
water,  its  use  will  be  necessary,  even  after  storage  contemplated  in  the 
plan  of  ultimate  development  of  the  water  resources  of  the  state  has 
been  constructed.  Return  water  is  now  being  used  and  its  use  will, 
without  doubt,  continue.  Exhibit  9,  dealing  with  return  waters  from 
Colusa  Trough,  is  an  extract  from  the  Water  Super\'isor's  Report 
for  1924. 

POWER. 

Demand  for  power.  Plate  9  shows  the  demand  for  power  by 
months  as  a  percentage  of  the  annual  demand,  from  data  furnished 
by  the  Pacific  Gas  and  Electric  Company  for  the  Sacramento  Valley, 
and  by  the  San  Joaquin  Light  and  Power  Corporation  for  the  San 
Joaquin  Valley. 

Water  available  for  power  development  at  Iron  Canyon  dam. 
In  the  plan  considered  in  the  1920  report  on  the  Iron  Canyon  project, 
water  for  the  project  was  diverted  directly  from  the  storage  reservoir 
in  a  high  line  canal  and,  therefore,  only  water  to  supply  prior  rights 
was  available  for  power  development  at  the  dam  during  the  low  Avater 
period.  With  the  diversion  works  for  the  project  located  downstream 
from  the  storage  dam,  as  contemplated  in  this  report,  all  water  passing 
the  dam,  including  that  to  satisfy  the  demand  of  the  proposed  project 
as  well  as  that  to  supply  prior  rights,  becomes  available  for  develop- 
ment of  power  at  the  storage  dam. 

Potential  power  at  Iron  Canyon  dam.  For  any  assumed  irrigation 
draft,  the  potential  power  increases  as  the  established  normal  water 
surface  in  the  reservoir  is  raised.  The  rate  of  increase  in  total  power 
is  less  than  the  rate  of  increase  in  normal  water  surface  eleva- 
tion because  of  the  more  rapid  increase  in  storage  capacity  of 
the  reservoir  near  its  top,  as  shown  on  Plate  4.  Thus,  raising 
the  normal  water  surface  7.5  feet  (from  elevation  392.5,  adopted 
in  the  1920  report,  to  elevation  400),  results  in  increasing  the 
average  power  head  16.3  feet  (from  114.8'  to  131.1')  while  an  addi- 
tional raise  in  water  surface  (from  elevation  400  to  405.5)  increases 
the  average  power  head  7.9  feet  (from  131.1'  to  139.0').  The  gain 
in  power  head  for  the  7.5  feet  raise  is  therefore  at  the  rate  of  1.52 
times  that  for  the  upper  5.5  feet  raise.  The  increase  in  primary 
power  is  greatly  in  excess  of  the  increase  in  total  power  since  the 
former  is  dependent  upon  minimum  i)ower  head  instead  of  the  average. 
With  the  assumed  irrigation  draft  for  the  Iron  Canyon  project  the 
increase  in  the  miuinmm  power  would  be  as  follows; 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


107 


Elevations 

Minimum  power  head 
in  feet 

N'ormal  water  surface 
in  reservoir 

Minimum  water  surface 
in  reservoir 

Tail  water 

392.5 
400.0 
405.5 

301 
353 

368 

253 
253 

253 

48 
100 

115 

As  will  be  shown  under  "Analysis  of  Estimated  Costs,"  economy 
results  by  raising  the  water  surface  from  elevation  400  to  405.5  by 
reason  of  the  increase  in  power.  It  is  evident  that  the  power  gained 
by  raising  the  water  surface  from  elevation  392.5  to  400  would  be 
more  profitable. 

In  column  13  of  tables  13*  and  14*  (Appendix  B)  is  shown  the 
amount  of  power  available  at  the  storage  dam  with  an  annual  irriga- 
tion draft  of  1,000,000  and  800,000  acre-feet  respectively,  upon  the 
assumption  that  the  storage  could  be  increased  over  that  considered  in 
the  1920  report  by  installing  movable  gates  in  the  siphon  spillways,  and 
on  the  crest  of  the  emergency  spillway,  to  raise  the  water  surface  in 
the  reservoir  from  elevation  392.5  to  400.  A  study  was  made  of  the 
amount  of  power  available  with  the  water  surface  raised  to  elevation 
405.5,  the  maximum  assumed  practicable,  upon  the  basis  of  an  annual 
irrigation  draft  of  800,000  acre-feet.  The  results  of  this  study  are 
shown  in  Table  17,"  Appendix  B.  Any  shortage  which  might  occur, 
on  account  of  the  failure  of  the  reservoir  to  fill,  would  be  increased 
slightly  Avith  the  higher  working  elevations  because  of  the  evaporation 
from  a  larger  water  surface  area.  However,  in  the  study  made  the 
working  storage  capacity'  was  increased  by  10,000  acre-feet  to  allow 
for  increased  evaporation,  and  as  the  October  draft  in  1923  was  so 
selected  that  the  reservoir  practically  fills  in  the  winter  of  1924,  the 
loss  by  the  greater  amount  of  evaporation  is  not  appreciably  felt  by 


irrigation. 


It  is  rather  a  loss  to  power. 


Power  gained  by  passing  project  irrigation  water  through  Iron 
Canyon  power  plant.  The  amount  of  power  gained  by  passing  the 
project  irrigation  water  through  the  power  plant  (as  modified  in  the 
following  paragraph),  upon  the  assumption  that  the  project  had  been 
receiving  a  full  water  supply  under  conditions  of  ultimate  development, 
is  shown  in  Table  18,*  Appendix  B,  to  average  94,313,700  k.w.h.  per 
year,  for  the  past  29  years.  In  determining  the  output  of  power,  it 
is  assumed  that  the  over  all  efficiency  of  the  plant,  measured  at  the 
switchboard,  is  80  per  cent. 

Studies  of  water  supply  and  of  power  development  were  made  before 
the  inclusion  of  the  7000-acre  East  Side  unit.  In  the  project  adopted 
the  21,000  acre-feet  of  water  for  the  East  Side  unit  is  not  available 
for  the  development  of  power.  The  average  annual  amount  of  power 
developed  by  passing  tlie  800,000  acre-feet  of  project  irrigation  water 
through  tlie  power  plant  is  94,313,700  Ic.w.h.  The  average  amount  of 
power  from  tlie  21,000  acre-feet  would  be  2,475,000  k.w.h.,  of  wliich  a 
considerable  proportion  is  secondary  power.     Tlie  average  annual  oiit- 


*  Tables    not   printed    to    save    space.      These    arc    on    file    at    office    of    Division    of 
Engineering  and  Irrigation  and  may  be  consulted  there. 


108 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


put  of  power  as  used  in  this  report  is  584,890,000  k.w.li.  The  error, 
then,  tliat  is  introdneed  by  tlie  inohision  of  tlie  21,000  acre-feet  of 
water  is  nei^liyible,  beiii<i'  .42  per  cent. 

Average  annual  power  output,  Iron  Canyon  plant.  Obviously  it 
is  not  practicable  to  in.stall  machinery  up  to  tlie  limit  of  tlie  flood  flow 
of  the  river.  The  average  annual  output  of  the  Iron  Canyon  power 
plant,  had  it  been  in  operation  according  to  various  schemes  during 
the  period  1895  to  1924,  inclusive,  is  .shown  in  Table  19,  Appendix  B, 
wliicli  mav  be  summarized  as  follows: 


Scheme 


A. 
B. 
C, 
D 
•E. 


Maximum 

water 
surface  in 
reservoir 


400 
400 
400 
400 
405.5 


Annual 

project  draft, 

acre-feet 


1,000,000 

1,000,000 

800,000 

800,000 

800,000 


Installed 

capacity, 

h.p. 


100,000 
105,000 
100,000 
105,000 
110,000 


-Average 

annual  output, 

k.w.h. 


530,420,000 
548,520,000 
540,990,000 
558,740,000 
584,890,000 


Per  cent 

primary 

power 


49.9 
48.2 
55.5 
53.9 
56.6 


Average 
per  cent  of 
time  water 
available  for 

operation 
at  full 

capacity 


57.5 
53.5 
56.0 
53.0 
53.0 


Future  increase.  No  studies  have  been  made  of  future  increase 
in  power  output  but  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  it  would  increase 
as  the  summer  discharge  of  the  river  at  the  damsite  is  augmented  by 
increase  in  seasonal  water  supply  through  the  construction  of  addi- 
tional reservoirs  above. 

Potential  power  on  main  canal  at  Mooney  Island  Slough.  Con- 
struction of  a  diversion  dam  at  the  mouth  of  Ked  Bank  Creek,  as  indi- 
cated on  Plate  2,  to  raise  the  water  surface  15  feet,  combined  with  the 
drop  in  the  river  between  the  diversion  dam  and  Mooney  Island  Slough, 
4.7  miles  below,  results  in  an  available  static  head  of  about  31  feet  at 
the  slough.  By  enlarging  the  main  canal  as  far  as  Mooney  Island, 
where  the  canal  and  ^Mooney  Island  Slough  are  a  very  short  distance 
apart,  to  carry  3640  second-feet  of  the  prior  rights  water  in  addition 
to  that  tp  supply  the  project  irrigation  demand,  the  3640  second-feet 
become  available  for  pow-er  development  at  IMooney  Island.  By  utiliz- 
ing some  of  the  secondary  power  generated  at  Iron  Canyon  dam 
during  the  months  May  to  Se])tember  inclusive,  an  average  annual 
output  equivalent  to  about  10,000  h.p.  of  primary  power  can  be  pro- 
duced through  the  eon.struction  of  a  plant  at  Mooney  Island  Slough, 
assuming  80  per  cent  efficiency  at  the  switch  board. 

Average  annual  power  output,  Mooney  Island  plant.  The  capacity 
of  the  Mooney  Island  power  ])laiit  is  tixed  upon  the  basis  of  the  power 
which  the  available  flow  passing  down  the  river  wall  produce  in 
October.  To  this  quantity  is  applied  the  demand  curve  for  the  Sacra- 
mento Vallc}-,  and  the  required  amount  of  power  necessary  to  supply 
the  demand  for  other  months  is  found  to  be  as  shown  in  Table  20,^ 
Appendix  B. 

'  Recommended  as  best  scheme. 

-Table  not  printed  to  save  space.  These  are  on  file  at  office  of  Division  of 
Engineering  and  Irrigation  and  may  be  consulted  there. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  109 

Average  annual  power  output,  Iron  Canyon  and  Mooney  Island 
plants  combined.  Phitc  10  shows  the  possible  output  of  powor,  bj' 
months,  resulting  from  the  utilization  of  an  800,000  acre-foot  project 
irrigation  draft  according  to  various  ;issui)i]itious  as  to  the  elevation 
to  which  Avater  may  ])e  stored  in  Iron  Canyon  reservoir,  and  as  to  the 
amount  of  generating  equipment  installed.  It  will  be  noted  that  con- 
sideration is  given  to  seasons  of  average  run-off,  low  run-off  and 
extremely  low  run-off.  The  graphs  sliow  the  output  of  the  Iron  Canyon 
plant  alone,  combined  with  that  at  the  Mooney  Island  plant.  The 
lieavy  line  divides  the  power  into  primary  and  secondary.  Primary 
power,  lying  below  the  line,  is  assumed  to  be  the  quantity  which  can 
be  furnished  in  accordance  with  the  demand  curve  for  the  Sacramento 
Valley  shown  on  Plate  9  based  upon  tlie  safe  output  for  October.  The 
safe  output  depends  upon  the  quantity  of  water  that  can  be  released 
and  still  have  assurance  that  the  reservoir  would  fill  during  a  season 
like  1923-24.  Data  from  Avhich  the  graphs  were  drawn  appear  in 
Tables  21,*  22,  23*  and  2-t,  Appendix  B. 

Attention  is  called  to  the  fact  that  tables  13*  and  11,*  wiiich  are 
based  upon  storage  in  the  reservoir  to  elevation  400  show  an  output 
less  than  40,000  h.p.  in  October  of  most  years.  A  study  of  the  tables 
for  1923-24,  however,  will  sliow  that  the  output  for  October  can  be 
increased  to  41,360  h.p.,  40,000  h.p.  primary  demand  plus  1360  h.p. 
project  pumping  demand,  the  amount  indicated  in  Table  21.*  Reduc- 
ing the  output  for  the  succeeding  months  in  accordance  with  the 
demand  curve  will  allow  the  reservoir  to  fill.  Likewise,  Table  17,* 
based  upon  storage  to  elevation  405.5,  shows  an  output  of  less  than 
44,000  h.p.  in  October  but  this  may  be  boosted  in  a  similar  manner  to 
45,360  h.p.  as  indicated  in  Table  22.  The  results  of  combining  the 
output  from  the  Iron  Canyon  and  Mooney  Island  plants  are  shown 
in  Tables  23*  and  24  and  lipon  Plate  10. 

During  the  time  the  irrigation  project  is  developing  it  may  be  pos- 
sible to  so  manipulate  the  reservoir  tliat  a  greater  amount  of  power 
could  be  developed  for  several  years  until  the  irrigation  requirements 
predominate  those  of  power. 

Basis  of  estimated  value  of  power.  In  figuring  revenue  from  the 
sale  of  power  the  demand  is  assum.ed  to  be  in  accordance  with  the 
monthly  distribution  of  power  in  the  Sacramento  Valley  by  the  Pacific 
Gas  and  Electric  Company  as  follows,  stated  in  per  cent  of  the  annual : 


January   6.5 

Februarv   6.5 

Marcli  J 6.9 

April 6.8 

May 8.8 

June   10.8 


July    11.4 

August   11.3 

September    9.7 

October    7.4 

November 6.9 

December 7.0 


It  is  assumed  that  power  generated  at  the  Iron  Canyon  and  IMooney 
Island  plants  can  be  sold  to  one  of  the  distributing  companies.  A 
main  transmission  line  passes  within  five  or  six  miles  of  botli  plants. 

Both  plants  proposed  are  located  where  there  is  no  possibility  of 
trouble  from  ice,  snow  or  sleet  storms,  and  the  fact  tliat  they  operate 

*  Tables  not  printed  to  save  space.  These  are  on  file  at  office  of  Division  of 
Engineering  and  Irrigation  and  may  be  consulted  there. 


110  WATER  RESOURCES  OP  CALIFORNIA. 

(Urectly  rroni  a  large  reservoir  makes  lliem  esjx'fially  Aalua])le  as 
standby  phiiits  ;iii(l  plants  that  Avould  respond  i-cadily  to  llic  dciiiaiids 
of  a  daily  })eak  Joatl  -witlioiit  loss  ot:  total  power  available. 

On  Plate  10  the  power  developed  at  the  Iron  (•anyon  and  Moone}^ 
Island  plants  and  the  amount  used  for  pumpiny  irrigation  water  to 
a  part  of  the  proposed  project  are  shown.  The  graphs  ajipearing  in' 
the  fourth  column  from  the  left  represent  the  power  situation  under 
what  is  believed  to  be  the  best  plan  of  development.  It  will  be  noted 
that  in  an  average  year  practically  all  (96  per  cent)  of  the  power  used 
for  ])roject  pumping  falls  within  the  area  of  secondary  ])ower ;  that  in 
a  low  year  approximately  69  per  cent,  and  that  even  in  the  lowest  year 
of  record  about  46  per  cent  of  the  pumping  load  would  be  supplied 
from  secondary  power.  It  is  believed  that  power  to  be  used  on  the 
project  for  pumping  would  be  of  i)ractieally  the  same  value  as  that 
considered  primary  power,  and  would  have  the  effect  of  raising  the 
average  value  of  secondary  power  considered  as  a  whole. 

In  years  of  extremely  low  run-off  conservation  measures  should,  and 
]-»robab]y  would,  be  put  into  effect,  both  in  the  amount  of  water  used  for 
irrigation  and  in  the  amount  of  power  consumed  in  general.  This 
conservation  would  result  in  bringing  the  pumj^ing  load  as  repre- 
sented on  the  graphs  more  nearly  within  the  area  of  power  developed 
and  less  auxiliary  poAver  would  be  rerpiired  in  steam  oi-  other  i)lants 
than  is  indicated. 

In  estimating  the  value  of  primary  power  it  has  been  assumed  that 
90  per  cent  of  the  power  of  that  class  as  measured  at  the  switchboard 
of  each  plant  is  salable.  Conditions  at  both  plants  are  believed  to  be 
favorable  for  the  development  of  this  class  of  power.  The  value  of 
secondary  power  is  more  problematic,  and  in  an  attempt  to  be  conserva- 
tive it  has  been  assumed  that  only  55  per  cent  is  salable.  From  the 
latter  part  of  ]\Iarch  through  April.  ]\fay  and  early  June  tliis  class  of 
power  is  said  to  be  of  practically  no  value  between  10  o'clock  at  night 
and  8  o'clock  in  the  morning. 

Information  relative  to  the  present  unit  value  of  power  was  sought 
of  the  Railroad  Commission  of  the  State  of  California.  Data  furnished 
indicates  that  in  three  comparatively  recent  contracts  between  irriga- 
tion districts  and  power  companies,  and  between  ])ower  companies,  4h 
mills  per  k.w.li.  is  the  price  fixed  for  all  energy  delivered.  The  point  of 
delivery  in  one  case  is  at  the  selling  company's  SAvitchboard,  and  in 
tAvo  cases  at  the  purchasing  company's  substation. 

The  assumption  that  90  per  cent  of  the  primary  poAver  is  salable  is 
belieA'ed  to  be  conserA'atiA-e,  since  the  output  of  primary  poAver  is  made 
to  coi-i'esi)ond  to  the  monthly  demaiul  of  the  Sacramento  Valley. 
Although  90  i)er  cent  is  somewhat  stricter  than  frequently  used,  it  is 
believed  that  daily  fluctuations  in  demand  can  be  com])letely  taken 
care  of  by  the  i)lants  Avithout  Avaste  of  Avater.  The  poAver  output  at 
the  Iron  Canyon  plant  can  probably  be  controlled  Avithout  undue 
fluctuations  of  the  river  discharge  below  the  diversion  dam,  since  the 
])ond  back  of  the  latter  com]n-ises  about  400  acres,  which  should  produce 
considerable  storage  regulation  in  that  it  can  be  draAvn  doAvn  some  at 
night,  Avhen  the  load  is  light,  and  allowed  to  fill  during  the  day  time. 
During  the  greater  part  of  the  irrigation  season  the  ])eaks  can  be 
assumed  as  extending  into  the  region  of  secondar.y  power. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


Ill 


Average  gross  revenue,  Iron  Canyon  and  Mooney  Island  power 
plants.  Tal)le  25  i.s  a  .sunnnary  of  tlic  avcraj^c  annual  nnti)ut  oi:' 
power,  and  the  resultinj;'  j^ross  i-eveuue  I'roiii  tlie  two  proposed  plants, 
accordin<i'  to  tlie  various  stiidie.s  made,  ui)on  the  assumption  that  power 
is  worth  4  mills  per  k.w.li.  The  present  value  of  power,  as  near  as 
can  be  determined,  lies  between  4  and  5  mills  per  k.w.h.  As  wall  appear 
later,  estimates  for  the  ])roject  have  been  prepared  upon  the  basis  of 
])0Aver  being-  worth  4,  4^  and  5  mills  per  k.w.h.  upon  the  assumption 
that  money  used  in  con.struclion  of  tlie  ])roject  would  bear  no  intei-est. 
In  addition,  a  study  was  made  in  whieii  the  construction  cost  of  tlie 
reservoir  and  power  features  are  amortized,  assuming'  comi)ound  inter- 
est of  5  per  cent  payable  semi-annually  and  power  delivered  at  4  mills 
per  k.w.h.  The  studies  of  cost  will  be  found  at  the  end  of  the  report 
under  "Summary  of  Financial  Considerations." 


TABLE  25.     POWER  OUTPUT  AND  REVENUE— IRON  CANYON  AND 

MOONEY  ISLAND  PLANTS. 

Summary  of  average  annual  power  output  for  years  of  record  (1895-1924)  and  estimated  gross  revenue  for  various 
assumptions  of  reservoir  control.  Power  assumed  to  be  worth  $0,004  per  Ic.w.h.  at  switcliboard.  .Assumed  plant 
etficiency,  80  per  cent. 


Project  draft,  800,000 

acre-feet 

Project  draft,  1,000,000 

acre-feet 

Maximum  water  surface  in  Iron 
Canyon  reservoir     

400 

100,000 

10,400 

405.5 
105,000 
10,400 

405.5 
110,000 
10,400 

400 

100,000 

10,400 

405.5 
105,000 
10,400 

405.5 

Installation  at  Iron  Canyon  dam, 
(h.p.) 

110.000 

Insta  lation  at  Mooney  Island 
(h.p) 

10.400 

Iron  Canyon  plant: 
Primary  power- 
Average  horsepower,  gross .  . . 
Annual  output,  k.w.h.,  gross 
Annual  output,  k.w.h,,  net= 
90  per  cent  o  f  gross 

46.045 
300,720,000 

270,650,000 
§1,082,600 

240.270,000 

132.1.50,000 
§528,600 

9,075 
59,333,000 

53,400,000 
§213.600 

600,323,000 

456.200.000 

§1,824,800 

50,545 
330,720,000 

297,650,000 
$1,190,600 

236,313,000 

129,972,500 
§519,900 

9,075 
59,333,000 

53.400.000 
§213,600 

626,366,000 

481.022,.-)00 

§1,924,100 

50,545 
330,720,000 

297,650,000 
§1,190,600 

254,170,000 

139.794.000 
§559,200 

9,075 
59,333,000 

53.400,000 
$213,600 

644,223.000 

4!)O.S43,(100 

§1,963,400 

40,445 
264,610,000 

238.150,000 
§952,600 

265,810,000 

146.195,000 
$584,800 

9,075 
59,333,000 

53.400,000 
§213,600 

589,753,000 

437,745.000 

$1,751,000 

44,920 
293,500,000 

264.150.000 
§1.056,600 

262,500,000 

144,375,000 
§577,500 

9,075 
59,333,000 

53.400.000 
§213,600 

615,333.000 

461.925.000 

§1,847,700 

44.920 
293,500,000 

264,150.000 

Gross  annual  revenue 

$1,056,600 

Secondary  power — 
Annual  output,  k.w.h. 
Annual  output,  k.w.h., 
55  per  cent  o  f  gross . 

gross 
net= 

280,357,000 
1.54,196,000 

Gross  annual  revenue 

§616.800 

Mooney  Island  plant: 

Primary  power^ 

Average  horsepower,  gross . . . 

.\nnual  output,  k.w.h.,  gross 

.\nnual  output,  k.w.h.,  net^ 

90  per  cent  of  gross 

9,075 
59,333,000 

53.400,000 

Gross  annual  revenue 

$213,600 

.\11  sources: 
Primary  and  secondary  power — 
Annual  output,  k.w.h.,  gross 
.Annual  output,  k.w.h.,  net  . 

633.190.000 

471.74li,{)OI) 
§1,887,000 

Power  used  in  pumping.  In  the  11)20  report  it  was  ])roposed  to 
serve  all  lands  within  the  j^roject  by  means  of  a  "High  Line  Gravity 
Canal"  diverting  from  Iron  Canyon  reservoir  at  Bend  embankment. 
In  order  to  irrigate  the  higher  lands  on  the  west  side  of  the  river 
included  in  the  former  report  north  of  Germantown  (about  mile  60  of 
the  canal  line  shown  on  Plate  2)  it  is  necessary,  under  the  plan  of 
diversion  proposed  in  this  report,  to  resort  to  pumj)ing.  Tlie  i)umi)ing 
plant  to  serve  the  higher  lands  north  of  Kirkwood  would  be  located  at 
the  K^ed  Bank  Creek  diversion  dam,  built  integral  with  the  headworks 
for  the  proposed  "Low  Line  Canal."     Six  other  plants  are  proposed 


112 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


to  lift  water  from  the  main  canal  to  various  tracts,  and  in  addition  two 
auxiliary  plants  to  lift  water  a  second  lime,  with  a  po.ssibility  that  the 
num])er  of  plants  in  this  latter  class  may  be  increased.  The  princi|)al 
areas  to  be  served  by  piimpin*;'  ai-e  shown  on  Plate  2,  the  canals  for 
that  purpose  being  drawn  in  red.  The  area  of  each  unit,  together  with 
the  lift  and  power  consumption,  is  shown  in  Table  26,  while  the  average 
monthly  distribution  of  the  pumjiing  load  is  given  in  Table  27. 

For  the  i)lan  of  development  considered  best,  there  are  shortages  in 
power  for  pumping  in  years  like  1919-20  and  1923-24,  as  indicated  in 
the  fourth  column  of  graphs  on  Plate  10.  It  should  be  borne  in  mind, 
however,  that  when  there  is  a  shortage  of  irrigation  water  the  recpiire- 
ments  for  power  to  i)ump  irrigation  water  will  be  correspondingly 
decreased  unless  advantage  is  taken  of  the  auxiliary  water  supply  which 
may  be  developed  by  pumping  from  wells. 


TABLE  26.     PUMPING  PLANT  DATA  AND  SUMMARY  OF  POWER 
REQUIRED  FOR  PUMPING  TO  PROJECT  AREAS. 


Location 

Acre-feet 
pumped 

Cu.  ft. 

per  sec. 
maxi- 
mum 

Length 
pipe 
line 

Size 
pipe 
line' 

Friction 
head 

Static 
head 

Total 
head 

Installed  capacity 

Power 

consump- 

H.P.« 

Pumps 

tion, 
k.w.h.2 

Intake 

»90,153 
'41,550 

31,800 
'50,100 

12,360 
8,606 
2,068 
5,489 

41,864 

371 
171 

130.7 
206.1 

50.8 

35.3 

8.5 

22.6 

172.2 

6,300' 
6,700' 

1,850' 
8,400' 

5,000' 

1,100' 

700' 

800' 

1,700' 

9.0' 
6.75' 

6.0' 
7.5' 

4.5' 
3.5' 
2.0' 
3.0' 

6.75' 

4.9' 
5.0' 

1.5' 
5.3' 

2.8' 
1.0' 
0.7' 
0.7' 

1.3' 

50' 
37.5' 

42' 
35' 

34' 
25' 
25' 
35' 

42' 

54.9' 
42.5' 

43.5' 
40.3' 

36.8' 
26.0' 
25.7' 
35.7' 

43.3' 

3,310 
1,180 

925 
1,350 

30 1 

149 

35 

131 

1,210 

3-48" 
J 1-36" 
\l-42" 
/1-24" 
\l-42" 

3-36" 

1-30" 
1-24" 
1-12" 
1-18" 
/1-36" 
\l-i2" 

7,260,000 

Thomes  Creek... 

Sta.  1175+00... 

Sta.  2271+00... 
Second  lift  from 
Sta.  2271+00. 
Sta.  3260+00... 
Sta.  4307+00... 
Sta.  4705+00... 

Sta.  4976+00... 

1  2,,590,000 

I  2,033,000 
2,960,000 

667,000 

329,000 

78,000 

288,000 

}  2,660,000 

Total  net..  . 

230,080 
283,990 

8,594 

18,865,000 

Total  includ- 
ing second 
pumping  . 

'  Single  barrel  in  all  cases. 

2  Efficiency  of  plants  assumed  to  be  70  per  cent. 

» Includes  41,550  acre-feet  pumped  at  second  lift. 

'  Second  lift  to  reach  lands  above  Corning. 

'  Includes  12,360  acre-feet  pumped  a  second  time. 


TABLE  27. 

MONTHLY  DISTRIBUTION  OF  PUMPING  LOAD. 

Month 

Kilowatt  hours 

Horsepower 

October 

7,54.600 
188,650 
943,250 
3,018,400 
3,773,000 
4,150,300 
3,773,000 
2,263,800 

1,360 

March 

340 

April 

1,750 

5,430 

June 

7,000 

July 

7,470 

Aujjust 

6,800 

4,190 

Totals  

18,865,000 

DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  113 

FLOOD    CONTROL. 

Frequency  and  estimated  volume.  The  curve  oL"  probable  fre- 
quency of  flood  diseliarge  of  liie  Sacramento  River  near  Red  Bluff, 
shown  on  ])a<ie  411  of  P>ull('tin  No.  5  ])ub]isli('(l  ])y  tlie  State  De])art- 
ment  of  Public  Works,  Division  of  p]ngineeriii<4'  and  Irrigation,  indi- 
cates that  a  discharge  of  3()(),00()  second-feet  may  be  exi)ected  once  in 
about  fifty  years  and  that  a  flood  of  250,000  second-feet  may  occur  once 
in  about  twenty-five  years.  The  maximum  discharge  since  the  gaging 
.station  near  Red  Bluff  was  established  occurred  on  February  3,  I'JUiJ, 
Avheu  the  flow  was  estimated  to  be  278,000  second-feet. 

Iron  Canyon  reservoir  as  a  flood  regulator.  Studies  made,  bear 
out  the  statement  in  the  1920  report  tliat  "The  value  of  the  re.servoir 
for  reducing  floods  lies  mainh'  in  the  possibility  of  so  operating  the 
gates  of  the  dam  as  to  produce  the  desired  effect  rather  than  in  any 
changes  in,  or  addition  to,  the  design  for  this  purpose.  Without  such 
intentional  regulation  the  reservoir  would  have  a  comparatively  small 
beneficial  effect  upon  floods,  while  with  proper  regulation  of  the  gates 
the  flood  peaks  could  generally  be  greatly  reduced." 

If  the  purpose  of  Iron  Canyon  reservoir  were  solely  for  flood  control, 
its  effect  on  floods  and  the  proper  method  of  operation  could  be  foretold 
with  some  degree  of  accuracy.  When  this  feature  is  combined  with 
the  twofold  duties  of  .supply  for  irrigation  and  for  power,  however,  the 
pi"obl(^m  becomes  far  more  complex. 

In  the  report  on  Iron  Canyon  project,  published  in  1914,  the  pro- 
posal is  made  that  the  reservoir  be  kept  empty  until  the  first  of  March, 
and  that  not  to  exceed  100,000  acre-feet  be  accumulated  by  March  15, 
and  200,000  acre-feet  by  March  31.  If  the  reservoir  had  been  operated 
according  to  this  plan  during  the  season  1920-2]  it  would  not  have 
filled,  and  there  would  have  been  an  irrigation  shortage  of  3  per  cent 
in  September,  with  the  800,000  acre-foot  irrigation  draft  project,  or 
13.6  per  cent  with  the  1,000,000  acre-foot  draft.  In  1923-24,  with  the 
reservoir  empty  on  March  1,  keeping  in  mind  the  priority  and  naviga- 
tion requirements,  only  11,000  acre-feet  would  have  been  stored  in 
]\Iarc]i,  and  there  would  have  been  a  power  shortage  in  April,  with  no 
water  available  for  .storage,  with  the  result  that  the  project  would  have 
had  only  11,000  acre-feet  of  irrigation  water  available  for  use  after 
May  1,  which  Avould  have  resulted  in  an  irrig;itioti  shortage  of  over  88 
per  cent. 

It  is  probable  that  in  practical  operation  the  crest  of  the  floods  could 
be  reduced  materially  for  some  distance  below  Iron  Canyon  dam,  but  it 
is  doubtful  if  tliis  reduction  could  be  counted  upon  to  the  extent  that 
any  less  precaution  could  be  talvcii  in  maintaining  works  down  stream 
from  the  dam  for  protection  against  floods.  In  this  connection  it  .should 
be  noted  that  if  tlie  maximum  outh^t  capacity  at  the  dam  for  flood  pro- 
tection purposes  is  assumed  to  lie  100, 000  second-feet,  it  w^ould  have 
been  nee(>ssai-y,  dui'ing  the  tiiree  days,  Fe])ruary  2,  3  and  4,  1909,  to 
maintain  a  flood  storage  rii.serve  of  415, 000  aei"e-feet  to  reduce  the  floAV 
below  100,000  second-feet ;  and,  for  the  period  January  15  to  January 
22  of  the  same  year,  the  required  reserve  would  have  been  521,000 
acre-feet. 

8 — 50667 


114  WATER  RESOURCES  OP  CALIFORNIA. 

It  is  well  to  keep  in  mind  that  there  have  been  seasons  of  very  low 
discharge  prior  to  1923-24.  The  seasons  of  1850-51  and  1863-64  were  of 
this  type.  As  the  latter  followed,  by  only  two  years,  the  excessive  flood 
season  of  1861-62,  it  is  very  probable  that  had  the  reservoir  been  in 
operation  the  effect  on  irrigation  would  have  been  disastrous,  owing 
to  the  overcaution  bound  to  have  been  exercised  if  operated  for  flood 

control. 

NAVIGATION. 

Effect  of  Iron  Canyon  reservoir  on  river  discharge.  The  average 
annual  run-off  of  the  Sacramento  River  at  Sacramento  is  25,200,000 
acre-feet,  of  which  approximately  15,000,000  acre-feet  originate  between 
Red  Bluff  and  Sacramento. 

Studies  made  of  water  supply  and  operation  of  Iron  Canyon  reservoir 
indicate  that  with  an  irrigation  draft  of  800,000  acre-feet,  the  minimum 
rate  of  discharge  would,  for  the  years  of  record,  usually  have  been  from 
3000  to  3500  second-feet,  or  more,  during  the  months  the  reservoir  is 
filling.  The  discharge  from  the  reservoir  during  the  filling  period  is 
that  required  to  develop  the  assumed  primary  jiower,  the  discharge 
decreasing  as  the  reservoir  fills. 

Had  the  reservoir  been  in  operation  during  the  past  30  years  the 
most  critical  month  of  record  would  have  been  April,  1924.  During 
that  month  the  discharge  through  the  dam  W'Ould  have  been  at  an 
average  rate  of  about  2900  second-feet.  During  the  month  66,500  acre- 
feet  would  have  been  stored  and  had  the  average  rate  of  discharge  been 
increased  the  reservoir  would  not  have  filled.  The  discharge  for  the 
month  at  the  Red  Bluff'  gaging  station  was  239,000  acre-feet,  or  at  an 
average  rate  of  4000  second-feet.  It  appears  then,  that  in  the  event  a 
rate  of  discharge  in  the  Sacramento  River  below  the  storage  dam  in 
excess  of  2900  second-feet  is  insisted  upon  for  the  purposes  of  naviga- 
tion during  a  critical  period  such  as  cited,  the  Avater  supply  of  the  Iron 
Canyon  project  might  be  affected  seriously.  However,  the  filling  period 
of  the  proposed  reservoir  comes  at  the  season  of  high  run-off  of  all 
streams  tributary  to  the  Sacramento  River  and  there  would  be  little 
clanger  of  navigation  being  interfered  with  through  the  construction  of 
the  reservoir  under  present  conditions  of  storage  development  on  tribu- 
tary streams,  as  the  flow  issuing  from  Iron  Canj'on  reservoir  would  soon 
be  built  up  sufficiently  to  meet  any  reasonable  requirement  of  naviga- 
tion, even  in  extremely  dry  years.  Under  conditions  of  ultimate  develop- 
ment of  water  resources,  other  reservoirs  would  be  filling  at  the  same 
time  as  Iron  Canyon  reservoir,  but  even  though  all  tributary  streams 
were  controlled  by  reservoirs  it  is  probable  that  power  would  be 
developed  at  some  of  them  and  that  the  power  water  during  this  period 
would  join  that  from  the  Iron  Canyon  ]>lant  to  create  a  total  discharge 
more  than  sufficient  to  supply  navigation  requirements. 

During  periods  in  the  irrigation  season,  when  there  is  a  shortage  of 
natural  flow  in  the  river  to  supply  prior  rights,  the  Iron  Canyon  jiroject 
will  draw  its  water  from  storage  in  the  reservoir  and  any  release  from 
the  reservoir,  in  addition  to  the  natural  flow  of  the  river  plus  water  for 
the  Iron  Canyon  project,  would  be  a  direct  benefit  to  navigation.  Such 
relea.se  is  not  contemplated  in  this  report.  If  such  release  should  be 
desired,  navigation  interests  should  bear  a  portion  of  the  cost  of  the 
reservoir. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  115 

Effect  of  Mooney  Island  power  plant  on  river  discharge.  Tlie 
utilization  of  prior  rights  water  at  tlio  jiroposiMl  Mooney  Island  i)ower 
plant  on  the  main  canal,  4.7  miles  down  stream  fi-oni  the  diversion  dam, 
involves  eonsidiM-ation  of  navigation  i-efpiii-cments  between  Red  liluff 
and  ^Mooney  Jslanil.  for  the  reason  that  tiie  i-iver  would  he  diverted 
throujih  the  main  canal  between  Red  Bank  Creek  and  IMooney  Island, 
with  the  possible  exception  of  a  small  amount  necessary  to  supply  prior 
ri«i'hts  l)etween  the  latter  points. 

Data  given  in  House  Document  Xo.  7(),  Sixty-first  Congress,  first 
session  of  June  28,  1901).  indicate  that  the  total  tonnage  of  all  commerce 
pa.ssing  over  anv  portion  of  the  Sacramento  River  from  Chico  Landing 
to  Red  IMuff  deerea.sed  from  14,586  tons  in  1900  to  32S0  tons  in  1909. 
I'here  is  at  i)resent  no  traffic  on  the  river  north  of  Chico  Landing,  nor 
has  there  been  for  a  number  of  j'ears  even  during  high  water,  according 
to  information  from  the  only  transportation  company  operating  in  that 
vicinity.  It  therefore  apj^ears  tluit  under  preseiit  conditions  naviga- 
tion between  the  diversion  dam  and  IMooney  Island  power  i)lant  is  not 
an  important  consideration.  There  is,  however,  a  government  project 
for  maintaining  navigation  on  the  Sacramento  river  in  this  vicinity 
and  it  would  be  necessary  to  obtain  the  approval  of  the  armj^  engineers, 
and  po.ssibly  congressional  action,  before  navigation  above  Mooney 
Island  could  be  abandoned  definitely. 

SILT. 

Effect  of  Iron  Canyon  reservoir.  In  the  plan  proposed  power 
development  automatically  i)rovides  storage  space  for  the  accumulation 
of  considerable  silt,  since  the  storage  reserved  in  Iron  Canyon  reservoir 
for  creating  the  minimum  power  head  amounts  to  364,600  acre-feet. 
No  studies  were  made  to  determine  the  silt  content  of  the  river,  or  the 
length  of  time  the  reservoir  would  serve  as  a  silting  basin. 

SALINITY    IN    DELTA    REGION. 

Iron  Canyon  reservoir  as  a  possible  means  of  control.  Sacrificing 
the  power  feature  at  Iron  Canyon  dam  would,  with  other  construction 
uiichanged  with  tlie  exception  of  the  arrangement  of  outlets  through 
the  dam,  supply  a  reserve  storage  of  364,600  acre-feet  of  water  in  Iron 
Canyon  reservoir  to  overcome,  or  alleviate,  the  salt  water  menace  in  the 
delta  region  should  such  use  be  desirable.  Such  use  is  not  advocated, 
but  it  is  demonstrated  that  there  are  possibilities  along  this  line. 

A  rei)ort  upon  Salinity  Investigations  by  the  Water  Supervisor  is 
contained  in  "Proceedings  of  the  Second  Sacramento-San  Joaquin 
River  Problems  Conference  of  1924."  It  is  stated:  "It  will  be  seen 
that,  based  on  the  relation  at  the  ().  and  A.  Perry  (San  Francisco  and 
Sacramento  Railroad  crossing  near  Pittsburg)  a  sum  of  the  Sacramento 
and  Vernalis  flows  ecjual  to  3500  second-feet  was  reipiired  (in  1924)  to 
]n*event  the  encroachment,  or  cause  the  recession,  of  salinitv  in  the 
delta." 

The  mean  discharge  of  the  Sacramento  aiul  San  Joaquin  rivers  in 
second-feet  during  the  critical  period  of  116  days,  between  ]\Iay  26, 


116 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


and  September  20,  1924,  wlien  the  eoinljiiied  flow  was  less  than  3500 
seeond-feet,  is  as  follows: 


Source  of  water 

May  26-31 

June 

July 

August 

Sept.  1-20 

Sacramento  River  (measured  at  Sacramento)  . . . 
San  Joafiuin  River  (measured  at  Vernalis) 

2,298 
829 

1,323 
575 

909 
420 

1,366 
420 

2.361 
416 

Combined  mean  discharge 

3,127 
37.524 

1,898 
113,880 

1,329 
79,740 

1,786 
107,160 

2  777 

111,080 

Total  run-off  in  IIC  days,  May  26  to  September  20,  inclusive 449,384  acre-feet 

Total  rim-off  in  110  days  at  rate  of  3,500  second-feet 812,000  acre-feet 

Approximate  run-off  in  116  days  in  1924 449,400  acre-feet 

Deficiency 362,600  acre-feet 

Available  storage,  Iron  Canyon  reservoir 364,600  acre-feet 

If  Iron  Canj'on  reservoir  were  to  be  used  in  the  manner  outlined 
above,  the  requirements  of  navigation  would  be  partially  satisfied 
although  the  flow  in  the  Sacramento  would  not  be  built  up  to  3500 
second-feet  for  the  reason  that  the  San  Joaquin  River  supplies  a 
part  of  the  water  estimated  necessary  to  act  as  a  natural  barrier 
against  encroachment  of  salt  -water  into  the  lower  rivers.  In  July, 
1924,  however,  the  average  flow  of  the  Sacramento  River  at  Sacramento 
would  have  been  built  up  to  about  3080  second-feet  in  comparison 
witli  the  909  second-feet  which  is  estimated  was  the  approximate  flow. 

Other  reservoirs.  Assuming  that  other  reservoirs  wall  be  con- 
structed as  time  goes  on  it  is  possible  that  their  construction,  as  well 
as  that  of  Iron  Canyon  reservoir,  could  be  so  timed  that  the  salt  water 
menace  could  be  kept  in  control  through  the  utilization  of  water 
impounded  in  excess  of  that  required  during  tlie  early  development 
of  the  irrigation  projects  for  which  they  are  built.  Tlius,  if  an  arti- 
ficial salt  water  barrier  is  proven  to  be  feasible,  and  desirable,  its  con- 
struction might  be  deferred  for  several  years,  or  until  it  is  no  longer 
advisable  to  waste  the  3500  second-feet  estimated  to  be  required  to  act 
as  a  natural  barrier. 

IRON  CANYON   RESERVOIR,  DAM   AND   POWER  PLANT. 

Iron  Canyon  reservoir.  The  location  of  the  reservoir  is  indicated 
on  Plates  1  and  2,  adjacent  to  the  project  considered  in  this  report. 
The  dam  site  is  located  at  the  extreme  lower  end  of  Iron  Canyon  and 
immediately  above  the  large  irrigable  area  in  the  Sacramento  Valley. 
Very  complete  data  on  the  dam  site,  including  topography,  diamond 
drill  records,  geologists'  reports  and  general  discussions,  will  be  found 
in  the  1920  report. 

Data  relative  to  the  reservoir  now  proposed  are  as  follows: 

Gross  storage  to  elevation  405.5 1,121,900  acre-feet 

Storage  reserved  to  create  a  minimum  power  head  of  115  feet      364,600  acre-feet 
Gross    storage    available    for    supplying    project,    including 

allowance  for  evaporation  losses 757,300  acre-feet 

(Part  of  the  irrigation  re<iuirements  are  supplied  from  the 

free  flow  of  the  river.) 
Installed  power  development  at  the  storage  dam 110,000  horsepower 

Iron  Canyon  dam.  TJie  dam  adopted  is  of  the  concrete  gravity- 
section  type,  with  vertical  upstream  face  and  1  to  1  downstream  face, 


DEVELOPMENT  OP  UPPER  SACKAMENTO  RIVER.  117 

the  latter  slope  being  used  to  reduce  foundation  pressures  to  the  prac- 
ticable limit.  The  length  of  tlie  dam  on  top  is  5175  feet.  In  addition 
to  the  masonry  dam,  the  construction  of  the  so-called  Bend  embank- 
ment is  necessar}^  to  close  a  low  gap  in  the  rim  of  the  reservoir  lying 
1^  miles  northwest  of  the  main  dam.  The  location  of  the  embankment 
is  indicated  on  Plate  2  and  the  design,  as  moditied  for  use  in  tliis 
report,  is  shown  on  Plate  14. 

Iron  Canyon  power  plant.  Between  stations  12+98  and  15+33 
the  section  "of  the  main  dam  is  moditied  to  provide  for  power  plant 
installation.  Tlie  revised  power  plant  contains  four  27,500  h.p.  turbine 
driven  generator  units,  eacli  supplied  by  a  20-foot  circular  penstock 
controlled  by  a  20-foot  by  20-foot  Stoney  gate  and  protected  by  trash 
racks  as  shown  on  Plate  15. 

Flood  control  gates.  Flood  control  is  provided  through  the  instal- 
lation of  27  10-foot  by  12-foot  hydraulic  operated  drum  gates  set  in 
the  dam  to  discharge  into  the  present  river  channel,  each  gate  being 
protected  by  a  12-foot  by  19-foot  Stoney  gate  located  at  the  upstream 
face  of  the  dam  to  be  operated  in  case  the  drum  gates,  for  any  reason, 
become  inoperative. 

Spillways.  To  pass  floods  beyond  the  capacity  of  the  flood  con- 
trol gates  27  large  siphons  are  constructed  on  the  crest  of  the  dam, 
in  a  position  to  discharge  into  the  present  river  channel.  The  channel 
bottom  and  sides,  to  a  point  above  estimated  high  water  surface,  are 
lined  with  concrete  as  a  protection  against  scour  of  the  rock  forma- 
tion. The  crest  of  the  siphon  spillway  is  at  elevation  392.5,  Avhich  Avas 
considered  the  normal  water  surface  of  the  reservoir  in  the  1920  report. 
In  the  present  report  consideration  is  given  to  the  feasibility  of  increas- 
ing the  head  for  development  of  electrical  energy  by  placing  movable 
gates  on  the  spillways,  which  would  be  lowered  if  necessary  to  pass  the 
larger  floods.  No  additional  right  of  way  for  the  reservoir  is  required 
because  the  maximum  elevation  of  water  surface  occasioned  by  an 
extreme  flood  is  assumed  the  same  as  in  the  former  report. 

As  brought  out  previously,  consideration  has  been  given  to  raising 
the  normal  reservoir  water  surface  to  elevation  400  and  to  405.5,  the 
latter  appearing  to  be  the  better  plan.  That  this  raise  in  water  surface 
might  be  accomplished  without  making  radical  changes  in  the  design  of 
tlie  dam,  the  gates  have  been  designed  to  operate  within  the  throat  of 
each  siphon,  as  shown  on  Plates  11  and  12.  Further  consideration  may 
indicate  that  a  radical  change  in  design  of  the  spillway  feature  is 
desirable. 

In  the  1920  report  an  additional  spillway,  which  might  be  considered 
as  an  emergency  overflow,  was  provided  on  the  west  side  of  the  river 
between  stations  40+00  and  50+00.  The  crest  of  this  overflow  spill- 
way was  at  elevation  397.5,  the  elevation  at  which  the  siphons  were 
assumed  to  prime.  In  order  to  raise  the  water  surface  to  elevation 
400,  it  is  proposed  to  place  vertical  steel  shutters  2^  feet  high  on  the 
crest,  so  designed  that  if  the  water  in  the  reservoir  reaches  elevation 
408  (6i  feet  below  tlie  top  of  tlie  parapets  on  the  dam)  they  will  go  out. 
To  raise  the  water  surface  to  elevation  405.5,  the  design  of  the  concrete 
crest  is  changed  to  provide  for  the  installation  of  movable  drum 
gates  whose  tops,  when  elevated,  would  be  at  this  elevation;  but  when 


118 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALirORNlA. 


lowered,  tlie  crest  would  he  at  the  orijiiiially  ])ro|)osed  elevation  of 
'.V.)1.7).  iieeaiise  of  space  rteeiiilied  by  piers  between  prates,  the  overall 
len^'tii  ol'  the  weir  would  he  iiierCftsed  to  1()7l  feet.  l)esi<>:ns  of  plates 
proposed  for  installation  on  tlie  ovei'flow  spillway  nilder  the  two  plans 
ai-e  shown  on  Tlates  11  and  1:5.  In  a  disenssion  iippe«rin<;  in  the 
"Analysis  of  Costs"  it  is  shown  that  it  will  pay  to  raise  the  -Vvatcr 
surface  in  the  rt'servoii-  to  elevation  40"). f). 

The  desio:ned  capacity  of  the  proposed  spillways  and  flood  eontroi 
outlets  in  cubic  feet  per  second  is  as  follows : 


I'/lcvatiniiB  of  water  surface  

340 

350 

392.5 

397.5 

405.5 

410.5 

Hiphotis           

200,000 
257,600 

200.000 
208.000 
•71),200 

200,000 

Flooii  ooiitrnl  gates 

159,000 

179,000 

250,000 

2  74,. 500 

164,000 

Totals 

159,000 

179,000 

250,000 

457,600 

547,200 

638,500 

'With  the  plan  proposed  of  panels  in  the  overflow  spillway  for  normal  water  surface  at  elevation  400  this  quantity 
would  lip  ahout  35.000  c.  f.  s. 


Ilig-ht  of  way.  The  proposed  Iron  Canyon  dam  to  stoi'e  water  to 
elevation  40")..")  will  back  the  water  np  the  Sacramento  liiver  to  a 
point  above  the  town  of  Anderson  and  up  Cottonwood  Creek  past  the 
town  of  Cottonwood.  The  Red  Bluflf  sheet,  U.  S.  Geologfical  Survey 
Keeonnaissance  JNIap,  shows  the  elevation  of  Anderson  as  4'-V2  and  of 
Cottonwood  as  429.  The  corresj)oiiding  elevations  given  in  Southern 
Paeitic  folders  are  488  and  428.  A  map  of  the  resei-voir  to  the  400- 
foot  contour  is  shown  as  Exhibit  6  of  the  1920  report. 

The  proposed  reservoir  Avill  submrrp-e  a  ]iortion  of  tlie  Anderson- 
Cottonwood  Irriyation  District  lands  and  accortling  to  the  soil  map  of 
the  district  (Plate  3),  on  which  tlie  40(i-foot  contour  lias  been  super- 
imposed, a  large  part  of  the  Columbia  silt  loam  in  the  bottoms  will 
be  submerged.  •  No  survey  of  the  405.5  contour  has  been  made  in 
connection  with  this  report.  However,  the  State  Department  of  Pub- 
lic Works,  Division  of  p]ngineerino'  and  Irrigation,  made  an  estimate 
of  the  valuation  of  lands  and  im])rovements  under  the  405.5  contour 
in  connection  with  other  work,  and  this  estimate,  modified  to  include 
marginal     areas,  is  included  herewith  as  Preliminary  Estimate  No.  1. 

Estimated  cost.  The  estimated  cost  of  Iron  Canyon  dam.  Bend 
ciiihanknicnt  and  the  power  plant  at  the  dam  is  shown  in  Preliiuinar\- 
Estimate  No.  2,  Avliile  the  estimated  cost  of  operation  and  maintenance 
of  the  power  plant  is  shown  in  Preliminary  Estimate  No.  8.  In 
Estimate  No.  2  the  quantities  are  the  same  as  used  in  the  1920  report, 
except  where  changes  were  made  necessary  by  change  in  the  ])lan.  An 
effort  has  been  made  to  revise  the  unit  cost  in  all  cases  in  accordance 
Avith  present  ]irices  and  latest  information  as  to  recent  costs  on  similar 
construction  work. 

Construction  materials.  In  the  former  estimate  it  is  stated  that 
sand  and  gravel  for  the  construction  of  the  dam  can  be  obtained  from 
pits  located  on  the  railroad,  three  or  four  miles  distant  from  the 
dam  site. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  119 

DIVERSION    WORKS. 

Diversion  site.  The  point  ol"  divi'i-sion  lor  llie  proposed  Iron 
Canyon  low  line  jiravity  canal  and  for  the  Red  Bank  i)unip  line 
is  on  the  west  bank  of  the  Saeraniento  Kiver.  abont  1100  feet  southeast 
of  the  mouth  of  Red  Uank  Creek.  I>,\  i-eferenee  to  I'late  17  it  will 
be  noted  that  the  i)roposed  diversion  dam  is  located  on  the  outside  of  a 
long,  sweeping  curve  in  the  river  and  just  below  the  bluffs  on  which  the 
city  of  Red  Bluff  is  situated.  The  blutf  of  indurated  clay,  gravel  and 
conglonuM-ate,  forming  the  west  bank  of  the  Sacramento  and  the  north 
bank  of  Red  ]>aidv  Creek,  resists  erosion  well  and  holds  the  Sacra- 
mento River  in  the  same  channel  throughout  the  year,  there  being  little 
danger  of  the  river  meandering  away  from  the  canal  headworks.  The 
topography  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  diversion  dam  site  and  a 
cross-section  of  the  river  channel  are  shown  on  Plate  16.  The  char- 
acter of  the  site  is  indicated  in  photographs*  A,  B  and  C  following  the 
report. 

The  river  at  this  point  is  subject  to  a  fluctuation  of  from  25  to  30 
feet,  between  Ioav  water  and  extreme  flood  stage,  Avhich  re(iuires 
comparatively  expensive  headworks  and  the  protection  of  the  canal 
against  floods.  The  problem  is  complicated  because  of  the  necessity 
of  building  a  dam  that  will  divert  the  required  amount  of  water  into 
the  canal,  and  at  the  same  time  will  not  materially  raise  the  water 
surface  elevation  in  the  river  at  flood  more  than  it  rises  under  present 
conditions.  The  water  surface  in  the  river  at  low  stage  under  present 
conditions  is  at  about  Elevation  235,  with  the  extreme  possibly  a 
foot  lower. 

Plans  considered.  Estimates  were  prepared  for  a  diversion  dam 
to  raise  the  water  surface  in  the  canal  to  Elevation  250,  and  for  a  low 
weir  and  intake  structure  that  Avould  divert  at  the  low  water  elevation 
of  235.  In  the  former,  two  plans  were  considered ;  the  first  to  provide 
for  the  diversion  of  approximately  3300  second-feet  of  project  irriga- 
tion water  only,  and  the  second  to  provide  for  diverting  3640  second- 
feet  of  water  for  use  in  the  development  of  power  at  the  Mooney  Island 
power  plant,  in  addition  to  the  irrigation  Avater.  The  larger  diverting 
capacity  is  provided  for  simply  by  increasing  the  number  of  head 
gates  in  the  canal  intake  structure  and  correspondingly  increasing  the 
length  of  the  sluiceway  floor.  The  estimates  referred  to  appear  as 
Preliminary  Estimates  No.  4,  No.  6  and  No.  7.  As  discus.sed  under 
"Analysis  of  estimated  costs,"  a  study  indicated  that  the  revenue  to 
be  derived  through  the  sale  of  power  developed  at  the  ^Mooney  Island 
power  plant  more  than  offset  the  greater  cost  of  building  the  diversion 
dam  to  raise  the  water  surface  in  the  canal  to  Elevation  250  and 
increasing  the  size  of  the  canal  to  include  the  water  for  power  develop- 
ment. Accordingly,  preliminary  designs  were  proposed  only  for  what 
is  considered  the  better  plan.  These  are  shown  on  Plates  17,  18,  19 
and  20. 

Plan  proposed.  The  diversion  works  proposed  are  in  accordance 
with  usual  practice,  consisting  of  a  dam  across  the  river,  a  sluiceway 
at  one  end  and  a  canal  intake  structure  so  arranged  that  the  flow  into 
the  canal  is  at  i-ight  angles  to  that  through  the  sluiceway. 

*  Not  included  in  printed  report.  Films  on  file  in  office  of  the  Ooninu.ssioner, 
Bureau  of  Reclamation,  Washington,   D.  C. 


120  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA, 

The  dam  across  the  present  main  river  channel  is  of  the  open  weir 
type,  ntilizin^  roller  {rates  similar  to  those  on  the  Grand  Kiver  dam 
in  Colorado.  There  are  fourteen  of  these  roller  gates,  each  60  feet 
long  and  15  feet  4  inches  high,  carried  on  large  piers  and  making 
closure  on  a  low  concrete  weir.  Protection  against  flow  through  the 
sand,  gravel  and  cobbles  upon  which  the  dam  is  founded  is  secured 
through  the  use  of  a  deep  concrete  cut-off  wall  and  timber  sheet 
]nles,  it  being  assumed  that  a  percolation  factor  of  6  is  applicable  to 
the  foundation  material.  The  gates  are  operated  by  electrically 
driven  hoists  located  on  alternate  piers,  there  being  a  hoist  for  each 
gate.  When  the  gate  is  raised,  the  elevation  of  the  lowest  portion 
across  the  waterway  is  266.25,  or  approximately  4  feet  above  the 
elevation  of  highest  recorded  water  surface.  AVith  tlie  arrangement 
shown,  sufficient  area  is  provided  that  the  water  surface  in  the  high- 
est flood  of  record  (estimated  278,000  second-feet  at  Red  Bluff 
gaging  station)  would,  according  to  calculations  made,  be  raised 
only  about  one  foot  above  the  elevation  under  normal  conditions. 
The  construction  of  the  dam  is  modified  at  the  south  end  to  make 
possible  the  utilization  of  the  two  roller  gates  nearest  the  canal 
intake  as  sluice  gates.  A  light  steel  operating  bridge  is  provided 
across  the  dam  and  a  fisliway  is  constructed  in  tlie  wall  of  the  east 
abutiiicnt. 

Canal  intake.  The  canal  headworks  carries  ten  15-feet  by  11-feet, 
top  sealed,  electrically  operated,  radial  gates  to  control  the  flow 
into  the  canal.  On  account  of  the  heavy  excavation  for  the  canal  a 
small  loss  of  head  at  the  intake  is  desirable,  and  consequently  the 
gate  areas  are  made  generous  with  a  resulting  velocity  of  only  4.5 
feet  per  second  througli  the  gates.  The  velocity  of  approach  across 
the  sluiceway  is  about  2.5  feet  per  second.  The  bridge  across  the 
intake  structure  is  designed  to  permit  passage  of  a  wagon  or  truck. 

Pumping-  plant  for  Red  Bank  pump  unit.  The  pumping  plant  serv- 
ing the  Red  Bank  pump  unit,  with  a  normal  capacity  of  371 
second-feet,  is  built  integral  with  the  main  canal  headworks,  the 
plant  being  placed  immediately  back  of  the  west  gate  of  the  intake. 
A  wall  is  built  in  front  of  the  plant,  Avith  its  top  two  feet  below 
normal  water  surface  in  the  canal,  so  that  water  passing  this 
gate  in  excess  of  that  required  to  supply  the  pumps  will  flow  on 
into  the  canal.  Provision  is  made  for  placing  stop  planks  above  the 
wall  so  til  at  the  pumping  plant  and  canal  can  be  operated  independ- 
ently. 

Earth  dike.  On  the  north  side  of  the  river,  east  side  of  the  valley, 
a  dike  is  required  across  the  overflow  channels  to  high  ground,  17,000 
feet  to  the  northeast,  to  prevent  water  passing  around  the  end  of  the 
(lam  and  undermining  the  abutment.  The  dike  proposed  has  a  top 
width  of  10  feet ;  3-to-l  upstream  and  2-to-l  downstream  slopes ;  and  a 
maximum  height  of  about  30  feet  wliere  it  dams  a  slough.  The  top 
of  tlie  dike  is  at  the  eleA"alion  of  the  roller  gate  piers  at  the  dam  and 
rises  oil  ;iii  even  sloj^e  until  it  reaches  the  280-foot  contour.  No  road- 
way is  ])i-oj)osed  on  top  of  the  dike. 

Effect  on  lift  to  Red  Bank  pump  unit.  It  should  bo  noted  in 
passing  lliat  Hie  eoiistniet ion  of  the  diversion  dam  to  raise  the  water 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  121 

surface  15  i'eet  will  result  in  a  reduction  by  tliat  amount  in  the  head 
against  which  water  must  be  pumped  to  the  Red  Bank  pump  unit. 

Construction  materials.  Sand  and  gravel  for  concrete  structures 
are  available  at  the  dam  site. 

MOONEY  ISLAND   POWER  PLANT  AND  WASTEWAY. 

Head  available.  As  indicated  on  Plate  17,  the  Mooney  Island 
power  plant  is  located  at  a  point  where  the  West  Side  low  line  canal, 
in  skirting  the  overflow  bottoms,  api)roaches  very  close  to  Mooney 
Island  Slough,  also  known  as  Ides  Creek.  Between  the  diversion  dam 
and  Mooney  Island  Slough,  the  Sacramento  River  drops  faster  than 
does  the  canal.  This  difference,  added  to  the  15-foot  raise  in  water 
surface  at  the  diversion  dam,  results  in  a  head  of  about  31  feet  available 
for  power  development  at  Mooney  Island,  as  shown  on  Plate  22. 

Power  plant.  The  preliminary  design  of  the  proposed  power  plant 
and  wasteway  is  shown  on  Plate  21.  The  ])Ower  plant  is  so  located  that 
the  intake  is  directly  from  the  main  canal,  the  flow  to  the  plant  being- 
controlled  by  four  15-feet  by  12-feet  radial  gates  with  gate  sill  set  6 
feet  above  the  floor  of  the  canal.  The  power  installation  consists  of  two 
5200  h.p.  units,  protected  by  trash  i-aeks  in  the  forebay.  Water  passing 
through  the  plant  will  discharge  directly  into  Mooney  Island  Slough. 
It  will  be  necessary  to  do  some  dredging  to  the  river,  a  distance  of 
about  3500  feet,  to  provide  sufficient  capacity  for  the  disposal  of  the 
tail  water,  normally  3640  second-feet. 

Wasteway  and  check.  A  four-barrel  siphon  spillway  and  a  three 
barrel  sluiceway  of  3750  and  1125  second-feet  capacity,  respectively, 
are  proposed  for  the  protection  of  the  canal.  These  wasteways  are  com- 
bined with  a  check  structure,  located  about  300  feet  below  the  power 
house  intake.  In  the  check  structure  are  four  radial  gates  11  feet  wide 
by  12  feet  high,  which  serve  to  control  the  head  at  the  power  plant 
above  and  the  flow  into  the  irrigation  canal  below.  Estimates  of  cost 
appear  in  Preliminary  Estimates  Nos.  8  and  9. 

Construction  materials.  It  is  assumed  that  sand  and  gravel  for 
concrete  will  have  to  be  hauled  1|  miles. 

Construction  program.  If  the  project  is  built,  consideration  should 
be  given  to  the  construction  first  of  the  diversion  dam,  Mooney  Island 
power  plant  and  the  4.7  miles  of  canal  between  them  for  the  purpose  of 
generating  power  for  use  in  construction  of  the  Iron  Canyon  dam.  The 
canal  between  the  diversion  dam  and  power  plant  has  a  surface  area  of 
approximately  100  acres  and  in  itself  will  serve  as  a  regulator  of  the 
fluctuation  in  discharge  through  the  power  plant. 

MAIN    CANAL. 
(West  Side   Low   Line   Gravity  Canal.) 

Basis  of  surveys  and  estimates.  At  the  time  tlie  location  survey 
for  the  main  canal  was  started  it  was  decided  to  use  low  water  level  in 
the  rivei'  at  the  mouth  of  Red  P>ank  Creek  as  the  ekn-ation  of  water 
surface  in  the  canal  at  diversion,  no  studies  having  been  made  at  that 
time  as  to  the  relative  6osts  with  and  without  a  diversion  dam.    There  is 


122  WATER  RESOURCES  OP  CALIFORNIA. 

a  difference,  therefore,  of  15  feet  between  the  elevation  of  the  line 
actually  surveyed  and  that  of  the  ])robable  location  between  the  diver- 
sion dam  and  ]\[ooney  Island  ])o\ver  ])hint.  No  attemjit  has  been  made  to 
determine  the  economical  use  of  this  15  feet.  It  might  be  utilized  for 
developing;  secondary  power  at  a  drop  near  the  ]\Iooney  Island  power 
plant  if  the  demand  for  this  chiss  of  power  .should  occur  in  the  future; 
a  i)art  of  it  might  be  used  to  increase  grade,  thereby  reducing  the  size 
of  canal  section ;  or  it  may  be  advisable  to  hold  the  caiud  uj),  making 
the  15  feet  drop  at  .some  point  as  far  south  as  Corning.  This  should  be 
considered  in  the  final  designs  but  tlie  accompanying  estimates  based 
upon  the  located  line,  are  deemed  sufficient  for  the  purpose. 

Profiles  of  the  lines  located  are  sliown  on  Plate  24,  accompanying  the 
report  in  roll  form,*  a  "key"  to  which  will  be  found  on  Plate  23. 
Typical  canal  cross-sections  and  hydraulic  properties  are  shown  on 
Plate  25.  The  estimated  cost  of  tlie  main  canal  is  given  in  Preliminary 
Estimate  No.  10. 

The  main  canal  was  located  on  relatively  flat  grades  in  order  to  reach 
the  irrigable  area  with  as  short  a  canal  as  possible,  since,  at  best,  the 
project  is  very  long  and  narrow.  A  grade  of  .00015  was  adopted  for  the 
entire  line,  with  the  exception  of  the  4.7  miles  between  the  diversion  dam 
and  IMooney  Island  power  plant  where  the  slope  is  .000075,  for  the 
reason  that  this  grade  appeared  to  meet  the  requirement  of  the  studies 
of  alternative  projects  in  which  the  area  included  might  be  located 
farther  south  than  in  the  project  re])orted  upon,  more  nearly  tlian  any 
other  grade  or  combination  of  grades.  Funds  available  for  the  investi- 
gation have  limited  this  report  to  what  seems  to  be  the  most  economical 
])roject  on  the  west  side  of  Sacramento  Valley  with  diversion  at  Red 
iiank  Creek.  However,  additional  studies  of  alternative  plans  should  be 
made  to  determine  the  location  of  the  area  which  could  be  served  most 
economically  from  Iron  Canyon  reservoir.  With  this  in  mind  the  survey 
of  the  main  line  was  extended  as  far  as  Putah  Creek  as  explained  under 
' '  Surveys. ' ' 

The  cost  of  lining  the  main  canal  with  concrete  is  relatively  high,  and 
although  the  estimates  were  based  upon  a  fully-lined  canal  below 
IMooney  Island  poAver  plant,  it  has  been  assumed  that  this  investment 
might  be  deferred  by  operating  the  canal  unlined  for  several  years  at 
about  two-thirds  of  its  capacity  lined.  Building  unlined  canals  to  be 
lined  at  a  later  date  works  out  well  on  the  Orland  project,  where  the 
force  which  operates  the  distribution  system  during  the  irrigation 
season  is  used  on  the  concrete  lining  work  during  the  winter  months, 
thus  keeping  the  organization  intact.  Ditch  riders  serve  as  foremen. 
Upon  the  assumption  that  lining  may  be  deferred,  the  canal  for  the 
first  70  miles  of  its  length  was  designed  to  give  a  velocity  near  the 
maximum  safe  velocity  for  the  material  in  which  it  is  to  be  built.  The 
result  is  that  the  velocities  for  the  canal  when  lined  are  rather  low. 
Below  mile  70  the  sections  were  designed  to  give  water  depths  between 
one-third  and  one-half  the  bottom  width,  resulting  in  unusually  low 
velocities.  A  deeper  section  would  produce  higher  velocities  and  there- 
fore less  excavation  and  concrete  lining,  but,  upon  the  other  hand,  the 
cost   of  cliecks  and  turnouts  would  be  greater.     Had  a  project  been 


*  Plate  24  of  printed  report  compiUd  from  originals  (S.  V.  44  ;  41-D-115),  submitted 
by  Walker  R.  Young  to  the  Bureau  of  Reclamation,  June,  1925,  and  on  file  in  its 
Denver  office. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UlTEK  SACRAMENTO  RIVET?.  123 

adoi)ted  for  study,  iiieludiiijr  no  iinmping,  or  had  one  been  adopted 
in  -wliicli  lands  in  tlie  vicinity  of  Woodland  would  be  supi)lied  by  a 
g:ravity  canal  divertin{>:  at  Red  liank  Creek,  the  water  to  be  carried 
at  any  point  alonjr  the  canal  would  have  been  jrreater,  with  a  resulting 
increase  in  velocity.  A  study  of  the  economic  ])alance  of  parade  a*rainst 
cross-section  of  canal  is  one  wliicli  must  be  made  before  fiiud  estimates 
are  prepared.  It  is  probable  that  such  a  study  will  indicate  that  the 
adoption  of  fjrades  and  sections  other  than  used  in  the  preliminary 
estimates  would  result  in  a  small  saving-  in  the  per  acre  cost  of  the 
l)roject. 

From  JMooney  Island  (station  254+33)  to  station  4976+00,  a  berm 
is  provided, on  the  rip;'ht.  or  upper  side,  with  slope  above  at  one-half  to 
one  if  in  cut.  This  berm  is  for  construction  purposes  only,  and  is  pro- 
posed for  use  in  connection  with  lining  of  the  canal.  Some  ec^onomical 
method  of  placing  the  entire  lining  from  the  left  bank  may  be  developed 
before  or  at  the  time  of  construction,  which  would  make  the  l>erini 
unnecessary. 

In  order  that  maintenance  of  the  canal  might  be  held  to  a  minimum,, 
it  was  decided  to  raise  the  water  level  in  the  canal  not  more  than  two 
feet  above  ground  surface  on  fairly  level  country  and  hold  it  at 
ground  surface  on  steeply  sloping  or  sidehill  land.  P^'rom  near  mile  35 
to  mile  105  the  location  of  the  proposed  canal  parallels  the  main  canal 
of  the  Glenn-Colusa  Irrigation  District  at  an  elevation  about  40  feet 
higher  than  the  constructed  canal.  This  is  considered  a  very  good 
reason  for  })lacing  the  proposed  canal  well  in  the  ground,  as  a  break  in 
the  Iron  Canyon  canal  would  jeopardize  the  Glenn-Colusa  canal.  With 
a  concrete  lined  canal  the  water  surface  in  fairly  flat  country  might, 
with  safety,  be  raised  to  3.0  feet  above  the  ground  level.  Between 
stations  1175+00  and  2045+00  a  comparatively  deep  canal  section  was 
adopted  to  save  on  excavation  and  concrete  lining,  as  the  location 
between  these  points  is  generally  on  steeply  sloping  country  and  as 
there  is  no  gravel  for  concrete  aggregate  between  stations  1626  and  2045. 

Excavation.  North  of  Stony  Creek  the  country  is  rather  rough 
topographically  and  the  excavation  will  be  in  gravelly  soil,  it  being  very 
likely  that  occasional  hard  strata  aiul  cemented  gravel  will  be  encoun- 
tered. Between  Stony  Creek  crossing  and  mile  70  the  canal  is  located  in 
fairly  level  country  where  the  digging  should  be  easy.  From  mile  70 
to  about  108,  where  the  canal  skirts  the  foothills  paralleling  the  Glenn- 
Colusa  canal,  the  excavation  will  be  in  rolling  country  with  some 
heavy  cuts.  South  of  mile  108  to  the  end  of  the  canal  the  country  is 
smooth  and  digging  should  be  easy.  No  difficulties  of  construction  are 
expected,  but  as  no  test  pits  were  dug  to  ascertain  the  character  of  the 
material  beyond  that  observed  in  cut  banks  and  excavations  along  the 
line,  no  classification  was  attempted.  It  has  been  assumed  in  the  esti- 
mates, however,  that  the  unit  cost  of  excavation  north  of  Stony  Creek 
will  be  materially  more  than  south  of  that  creek.  Estimates  are  based 
upon  the  use  of  dragline  excavators. 

Special  considerations,  upper  4.7  miles  of  canal.  The  canal  between 
the  divei'sion  dam  and  ]\Iooncy  Island  i)o\vcr  plant  will  be  of  unusual 
proportions,  and  as  the  designed  Avater  depth  is  16  feet  the  bottom  of 
the  canal   will  be  several  feet  below  the  ground  water  table  during 


124  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

times  of  high  water  in  the  river.  The  canal  will  be  located  in  gravelly 
material,  and  the  loAver  canal  bank  will  serve  as  a  levee,  or  dike, 
to  prevent  the  river  from  breaking  into  the  canal.  Under  these  con- 
ditions it  is  doubtful  if  concrete  lining  could  be  sufficiently  weeped 
to  prevent  di.splacement  by  external  pressure.  Attention  is  called  to 
the  section  and  hydraulic  properties  of  this  portion  of  the  canal,  shown 
on  Plate  25. 

By  reference  to  Plates  2  and  17  it  will  be  noted  that  above  Mooney 
Island  the  canal  is  some  distance  from  the  river  channel.  The  velocity 
of  the  current  along  the  river  side  of  the  dike  can  never  be  a  serious 
consideration  on  account  of  tlie  lieavy  groAvth  of  timber  and  brush 
between  it  and  the  river.  A  20-foot  road  is  provided  on  the  canal  bank, 
just  behind  the  dike,  for  use  during  construction,  and  for  use  in 
operating  and  maintaining  the  canal.  TJie  dike  will  probably  be 
built  with  draglines.  The  5-foot  top  width  shown  is  for  no  purpose 
other  than  to  produce  a  suitable  thickness  of  bank  at  higli  water  line 
witli  the  slopes  adopted.  Under  the  conditions  it  is  probable  that  the 
freeboard  shown  is  con.servative,  since  it  results  in  a  levee  whose 
top  is  8  feet  above  a  flood  which  has  occurred  only  once  in  thirty  years 
or  more. 

Canal  lining.  Of  the  entire  length  of  120  miles  of  the  nuiin  canal 
it  is  proposed  to  ultimately  line  with  1 :2^  :5  plain  concrete  all  but 
the  4.7  miles  between  the  diversion  dam  and  Mooney  Island  power 
plant.  From  station  253+33  to  2878+20,  where  tlie  section  has  a 
bottom  width  of  23  feet  and  water  depth  of  9.7  feet,  to  carry  1485 
second-feet,  the  lining  has  been  made  4  inches  thick.  Below  Station 
2878+20  the  thickness  is  reduced  to  3  inches. 

It  is  possible  that  in  certain  areas,  where  the  heavier  claj's  and  adobes 
are  encountered,  it  will  not  be  necessary  to  line  the  canal,  as  seepage  may 
be  expected  to  be  overcome  by  the  natural  silting  of  the  canal,  and 
economy  might  result  by  enlarging  the  canal  in  these  areas  ratlier  than 
to  line  it. 

Structures.  Estimates  are  based  upon  the  assumption  that  all 
canal  structures  will  be  of  the  highest  type  of  concrete  and  steel  con- 
struction. Although  canal  structure  drawings  are  not  included  in  the 
report,  preliminary  designs  were  prepared  in  sketch  form  for  use  in 
estimating  quantities. 

Siphons.  Siphons  to  carry  the  canal  under  stream  beds  and  Avater 
courses  will  be  an  expensive  item  of  construction,  due  not  only  to  the 
large  number  required,  but  also  to  the  shallowness  of  the  cliannels 
wliich  are  proportionately  wide.  The  preliminary  estimates  include 
the  construction  of  29  siphons  at  the  following  creeks: 

Coyote  Creek  Rice  Creek  Hunters  Creek 

Oat  Creek  Branch  of  Rice  Creek  Funks  Creek 

Gerber  Creek  Stony  Creek  Stone  Corral  Creek 

Elder   Creek  North  Fork  Willow  Creek  Fresh  Water  Creek 

McClure  Creek  Wilson  Creek  Salt  Creek 

Thomes   Creek  Sheep  Corral  Creek  Spring  Creek 

1st  Croek  South  of  Thomes  French  Creek  Cortina    Creek 

2d  Creek  South  of  Thomes  Branch    South    Fork    Wil-  North  Fork  Sand  Creek 

3d  Creek  South  of  Thomes        low  Sand  Creek 

4th  Creek  South  of  Thomes  Tx)gan    Creek  Shone  Creek 


DEVELOPMENT  OP  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  125 

The  typical  de.si<xn  adopted  consists  of  a  one,  two  or  throe  circular, 
reinforced  concrete,  barrel  structure  across  the  creek  channel,  -witli  its 
top  buried  about  .'i  feet  below  the  creek  bottom.  At  eacli  end  the 
transition  from  the  canal  section  to  the  siphon  barrel  is  made  by 
utilizing:  easy  reverse  curves  m  the  form  of  a  bell  mouth,  the  bottom 
dropping  as  the  section  is  narrowed.  The  transition  from  square  to 
circular  is  made  within  the  barrel.  The  diameter  of  the  barrels  ranges 
up  to  a  maximum  of  16  feet  3  inches,  depending  upon  the  location  of 
the  siphon. 

Tile  designed  velocities  were  made  comparatively  low  to  save  head, 
the  velocities  ranging  between  7.1  feet  per  second  at  the  upper  end  of 
the  canal  tp  3.3  feet  per  second  at  the  lower  end.  The  capacity  was 
calculated  by  Scobey's  formula  Q=0.00546  C^d-  «-=H°  '^  given  in  Bulle- 
tin No.  852  published  by  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture, 
assuming  a  value  of  Cg^  0.345.  An  allowance  was  made  of  5  per  cent 
over  the  average  losses  as  determined  from  experiments,  which  modi- 
fies the  above  formula  to  Q=0.0052  Csd- •'-^H'^  ■■.  The  head  utilized 
at  each  of  the  siphon  crossings  is  shown  on  the  canal  protile,  Plate  24.* 

Wasteways.  Wasteways  will  also  be  an  expensive  feature  of  the 
canal  on  account  of  the  scarcity  of  streams  with  deep  channels.  ]\Iost 
of  the  streams  crossed  are  only  flat  depressions  without  the  usual 
stream  banks.  There  are  no  well  defined  channels  between  Willow 
Creek  (mile  64)  and  Brush  Creek  (mile  120)  which  reach  the  Sacra- 
mento River  or  the  main  drainage  canal  through  Colusa  Basin.  The 
present  deficient  channels  must  be  opened  up  and  in  addition  some 
provision  must  be  made,  probably  in  the  form  of  siphons,  for  carry- 
ing waste  from  the  proposed  Iron  Canyon  canal  under  the  Glenn- 
Colusa  canal.  No  difficulties  are  encountered  at  the  railroad  or  high- 
way since  the  structures  over  wasteway  channels  are  already  of  ample 
dimensions  to  pass  the  waste  water  from  the  canal.  A  redeeming 
feature  of  the  wasteway  problem  is  that  a  start  will  have  been  made 
toward  solving  the  possible  project  drainage  problem  at  the  time  the 
wasteway  channels  are  opened  up. 

Following  is  a  list  of  Avasteways  j)roposed,  their  locations  are  indi- 
cated on  Plate  2. 

Approxi-  Normal 

mate  capacit}/  in 

mile  Name    of    creek  second-feet 

5 Mooney   Island   Slough  487;") 

14 Thomes   Creek  2S30 

28 Rice  Creek  2450 

38 Stony  Creek  2170 

51 ^___  North  Fork  Willow  Creek  1400 

68 Logan  Creek  laSO 

85 Stone  Corral  Creek  1030 

94 Glenn   Valley   Creek  540 

107 Cortina    Creek  280 

120 Bnish  Creek  65 

In  the  typical  preliminary  design  adopted  for  estimating  purposes 
the  wasteway  is  constructed  in  the  lower  canal  bank,  the  discharge 

•  Not  shown  on  condensed  profile  of  this  bulletin. 


126 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


fi'oiii  tlic  cjiiiJil  Ix'iii.u'  (mhiI  rolled  liy  clccl  rii'Jilly  opciiilcd  sled  i-;i(li;il 
<;<it('s  iiKiiiiili'd  ill  a  j-cinfoi-ced  concrete  sti-ucture.  It  is  assumed 
tliaf  tlie  di'ixiiiii'  motors  Avill  he  remote  eoiit  rolled  t'l'om  the  ditch  ridci-'s 
(juarters. 

At  present  the  Glenii-C'oliisa  canal  is  carried  across  Stony  (-reek  by 
simply  constructing:  the  lower  canal  bank  across  the  creek.  Tiiis  bank 
is  reconstructed  each  year  as  necessary.  In  order  that  Stony  Creek 
may  be  utilized  as  a  wasteway  for  the  proposed  Iron  Canyon  canal 
it  is  assumed  tliat  it  would  be  necessary  to  construct  a  siphon  to  carry 
tlie  Glenn-Colusa  canal  under  the  creek.  Although  the  Glenn-Colusa 
expends  some  money  in  maintaining-  the  present  crossing,  and  would 
prol)ably  be  willing  to  contribute  a  jiortion  of  the  money  i-e(|uii'ed  for 
tiie  construction  of  the  siphon,  it  has  been  assumed  in  the  preliminary 
estimates  that  the  entire  cost  would  be  borne  by  the  Iron  Canyon 
project. 

Side  drain  intakes  and  culverts.  Floods  in  tlie  Sacramento  Valley 
have  occurred  frequently  in  tiie  past  between  Willows  and  Knights 
Landing  Kidge,  especially  below  the  Willow  Creek  drainage  area. 

During  a  storm  extending  from  February  28  to  ]\Iarch  J),  1911, 
which  caused  serious  flooding  of  areas  in  the  vicinity  of  Willows  it  is 
reported  that  a  total  of  7.04  inclies  of  rain  fell,  disti-ibuted  as  follows: 

February     28 .75  inclies 

.March  1 .no  inches 

2 .20  inches 

3 1.05  inches 

4 .50  inches 

5 .70  inches 

0 2.00  inches 

7 .00  inches 

8 .03  inches 

9 .01  inclies 

The  maximum  rainfall  for  any  one  month  in  this  area  during  the 
period  of  1878  to  1915,  inclusive,  was  9.89  inches.  The  quantity  of 
7.04  inches  therefore  is  probably  tiie  maximum  for  any  10-day  period 
which  gave  estimated  run-off  for  the  preparation  of  a  report  on  Knights 
Landing  Ridge  Cut  project  by  Ilaviland  and  Tibbetts,  engineers,  dated 
November,  1912,  for  streams  from  Willow  Creek  to  Cortina  Creek, 
inclusive,  as  follows : 

Willow  Creek  and  Walker  Creek 15,000  second-feet 

Logan    Creek 100  second-feet 

Hunters  Creek 080  second-feet 

Funks    Creek 200  second-feet 

Stone  Corral  Creek . 1.241  second-feet 

Lnrline  Creek 015  second-feet 

Freshwater   Creek ; 312  second-feet 

Salt    Creek 121  second-feet 

Old  Cortina  Creek 29  second-feet 

Cortina    Creek 503  second-feet 

Total   10.101   second-feet 


It  is  pro])able  that  the  canal  of  the  proposed  Iron  Canyon  i)roject 
may  be  utilized  to  some  extent  in  relieving  this  condition  by  taking 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  127 

SOUK'  of  tlie  run-off  uear  Willows  aiul  i'arr\in<,'  it  to  wa.steway.s  larllifr 
(lo\\ni  the  line,  thus  distributing  the  fiood  over  a  larger  area.  In  accord- 
ance with  this  plan  of  caring  for  fiood  waters  in  the  minor  channels, 
97  overflow,  or  side  drain  intakes  have  been  planned  south  of  Stony 
Creek  instead  of  culverts.  There  are  onl}'  three  culverts  definitely 
planned  but  $100,000  has  been  added  to  the  estimate,  for  culverts  that 
probably  would  be  required  north  of  Stony  Creek.  Any  other  expendi- 
ture would  be  cared  for  under  a  supplemental  i)lan,  as  this  expendi- 
ture would  be  the  result  of  conditions  which  might  develop  after  the 
canal  is  constructed,  including,  possibly,  means  for  taking  a  part  of 
the  water  from  some  of  the  main  channels  into  the  canal.  No  attempt 
has  been  uuide  in  the  preliminary  estimate  to  determine  what  tliis 
expenditure  might  be  and  nothing  lias  been  allowed  for  it. 

Checks.  There  are  55  checks  proposed  for  construction  in  the 
main  canal,  the  side  slopes  of  the  canal  being  warped  to  the  vertical 
to  accommodate  radial  gates.  The  bottom  of  the  canal  at  the  gates  is 
made  the  width  necessary  to  give  a  gate  area  equivalent  to  the  water 
way  area  of  the  canal,  with  a  resulting  uniform  flow  through  the 
cheeks.  The  gates  are  actuated  by  hand-operated  worm-gear  hoists 
mounted  on  an  operating  bridge  over  the  check  structure. 

Drops.  In  the  preliminary  location  survey  drops  in  grade  were 
made  as  indicated  on  Plates  2  and  24  as  follows: 

(1)  Fifteen  feet  just  below  the  location  of  ]\Iooney  Island  power 
plant, 

(2)  Nine  feet  near  mile  75,  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  rough  side 
hill  construction  north  of  the  Mills  Orchard  tract,  and  to  avoid 
cutting  through  the  tract.  Tf  by  the  time  a  final  location 
survej'  is  made,  these  orchards  have  been  extended  to  cover 
the  preliminary  location,  it  may  be  more  economical  to  retain 
this  nine  feet  of  grade  until  Stone  Corral  Creek  is  reached. 

(3)  Two  feet  at  Stone  Corral  Creek,  to  avoid  expensive  right  of 
way  in  the  Mills  Orchard  settlement,  and  to  obtain  a  more 
economical  cut  for  the  caiml  section  adopted, 

(4)  Two  feet  at  Sand  Creek,  in  order  to  utilize  the  present  railroad 
and  highway  crossings  just  north  of  Arbuckle.  This  results 
in  a  better  location,  considering  improvements  in.  and  near, 
Arbuckle. 

It  is  assumed  that  the  inclined  chute  type  of  drop  will  be  used. 

In  the  preparation  of  the  estimates,  the  two-foot  droj)  at  Sand  Creek 
was  replaced  by  three  others  aggregating  two  feet  between  miles  5)4 
and  115  to  keep  the  canal  in  economic  cut.  In  the  final  location  it  is 
l)robable  that  the  line  would  be  shifted  to  liigher  ground,  eliminating 
the  three  drops. 

Bridges.  The  type  of  bi-idge  adopted  for  carrying  the  highway 
and  roads  over  the  main  canal  is  the  single  span  steel  truss  noi-th  of 
mile  106  and  the  single  span  steel  I  beam  tyi)e  south  of  that  i)oint.  In 
all  cases  it  is  a.ssumed  that  the  nuiximum  load  to  be  carried  would  be 
one  20-ton  truck.  The  com])utations  of  the  trusses  were  based  upon 
the  American  Bridge  Company's  formula  for  one  15-ton  truck,  25  per 
cent  being  added  to  the  resulting  weights  of  steel  to  allow  for  the 
increased  loading.    Computations  of  the  I  beam  type  bridges  are  based 


128 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CAXiIFORNIA. 


upon  tlie  formula  and  standard  specifications  for  steel  highway  bridges 
adopted  by  the  American  Association  of  State  Highway  officials, 
approved  for  federal  aid  roads,  and  ajjiioaring  in  Bulletin  No.  1259, 
United  States  Department  of  Agrieultui-e. 

The  estimates  provide  for  50  truss  bridges  liaving  spans  from  39  to 
76  feet  and  5  I  beam  bridges  with  spans  of  24  to  31  feet.  A  16-foot 
roadway  is  provided  in  all  cases.  Concrete  floors  5  inches  thick  are 
provided  on  three  truss  bridges  and  one  I  beam  bridge  on  paved  roads. 
All  other  bridges  carry  wooden  floors  made  up  of  3-inch  decking  and 
2-inch  flooring.    Concrete  abutments  are  estimated  in  all  cases. 

Railroad  crossings.  Five  railroad  crossings  are  required  as  follows : 

Southern  Pacific  main  line  north  of  Tehama. 

Southern  Pacific  main  line  south  of  Tehama. 

Southern  Pacific  Hamilton  branch  east  of  Orland. 

Southern  Pacific  main  line  north  of  Germantown. 

Southern  Pacific  Fruto  branch  west  of  Willows. 

The  railroad  to  Sites  has  been  torn  up.  The  type  of  crossing  adopted 
for  purposes  of  the  preliminary  estimates  is  the  solid  reinforced  con- 
crete deck  bridge  carried  on  concrete  piers  and  allowing  for  a  fully 
ballasted  road  bed. 

Turnouts.  In  the  absence  of  a  survey  of  the  lateral  system  it  was 
assumed  that  turnouts  should  be  located  at  intervals  of  about  one-half 
mile  along  the  main  canal.  The  amount  of  water  to  be  delivered  to 
various  areas  in  the  project  is  taken  from  column  5  of  Table  8  and 
the  average  capacity  of  the  turnouts  is  determined  bj^  dividing  b.y  the 
number  in  the  section  of  canal  considered.  It  was  found  that  a  total 
of  228  turnouts  are  required,  including  2-3-foot  by  3-foot  boxes;  33-24- 
inch  circular;  81-18-inch  circular  and  112-12-inch  circular  turnouts. 
The  design  contemplates  steel  screw  lift  gates  installed  in  concrete 
turnout  structures,  the  gates  for  the  circular  turnouts  being  set  on  a 
slope  on  the  inside  of  the  lower  canal  bank. 

A  box  turnout  with  cast  iron  gate  is  assumed  to  be  required  to 
supply  the  area  to  the  east  of  the  canal  between  the  diversion  dam  and 
jNEooney  Island  Slough  on  account  of  the  distance  through  the  high 
water  dike  and  the  back  pressure  on  the  turnout  when  the  river  is  high. 
Another  such  structure  is  assumed  necessary  to  supply  the  area  east 
of  the  railroad,  and  immediately  south  of  the  Glenn-Colusa  Irrigation 
District,  as  the  topography  of  that  area  is  such  that  a  lateral  along 
the  north  side  of  Cortina  Creek  will  probably  be  required. 

Fences.  The  i)reliniinary  estimates  are  based  upon  the  assumption 
that  a  fence  will  be  provided  on  each  side  of  the  main  canal  for  its 
entire  length.  Thi-ee  barbed  wires,  strung  on  posts  spaced  211  to  the 
mile,   are  assumed. 

Telephone  system.  The  system  assumed  includes  42  telephones  in 
booths  served  by  128  miles  of  line,  utilizing  40-foot  and  25-foot  poles 
spaced  30  to  the  mile. 

Patrolmen's  quarters.  It  is  assumed  tliat  eight  patrolmen  will 
be  required  to  oi)erate  the  main  canal,  with  quarters  located  as  follows : 

At  intake    mile     0  mile     60 

Thomos   Creek   mile  15  mile     75 

Rice  Creek mile  30  Glen   Valley   Slough mile     93 

mile  45  Cortina   Creek   mile  109 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVKH.  129 

111  the  prcliiniiwii'v  cstiiiKitr  prdxisioii  is  iiijiii*'  fdf  the  (•diist  riid  ion  of 
a  siiijill  coltafrc  and  jjarafri'  for  each  ])atr()lniaii. 

Project  headquarters.  I'rojccl  lica(l(|ii;irtfrs  oflict's  arr  iiiciiidiMl  in 
a  separate  estimate,  as  this  cxpendilure  should  he  distril)u1('d  a<rainst 
all  features  of  the  ])roject. 

Clearing*  and  grubbing".  Tliere  will  be  eoiisiderablc  eleariiij;  of 
right  of  way  necessary  on  the  first  forty  miles  of  canal,  but  very  little 
south  of  there.  This  item  will  involve  the  removal  of  growths  ranging 
from  heavy  timber  and  brush  to  vineyards. 

Right  of  w^ay.  As  mentioned  under  "Surveys,"  an  effort  was  made 
to  avoid  all  expensive  right  of  way.  The  greatest  interference  Avas 
encountered  at  the  town  of  Gerber,  where  it  a])peaj"s  that  it  will  be 
neeessary  to  run  the  canal  along  the  east  townsite  line,  unless  a 
material  change  is  made  in  the  final  location.  If  the  i)reliminary 
location  were  ado])ted  it  Avould  be  necessary  to  move  a  hop  plant  and 
a  residence,  as  well  as  to  reconstruct  several  blocks  of  street. 

Construction  materials.  Saud  and  gravel  for  concrete  in  the  canal 
lining  and  structures,  including  the  lateral  system,  can  be  obtained  in 
sufficient  quantities  in  the  creeks  between  the  diversion  dam  and  about 
mile  52  on  the  main  canal,  with  an  average  haul  of  from  0.8  to  3.8 
miles.  Below  mile  52  it  is  assumed  that  concrete  aggregate  will  be 
shipped  from  Orland  to  suitable  points  on  the  Southern  Pacific  Kail- 
road,  from  where  the  maximum  haul  would  be  about  five  miles  in 
addition  to  distribution  along  the  canal. 

RED   BANK    PUMP  CANAL. 
(West  Side   High    Line   Pump  Canal.) 

Basis  of  surveys  and  estimates.  The  Red  Bank  pump  unit  includes 
a  gross  area  of  1)9,350  acres  to  be  watered  by  pumping  at  the  project 
diversion  dam  at  the  mouth  of  Red  Bank  Creek.  As  this  is  the  largest 
area  proposed  to  be  irrigated  by  ])um])ing,  and  since  it  is  typical  of 
other  areas  to  be  served  by  pumping  from  the  main  gravity  canal,  a 
field  survey  and  preliminary  estimate  were  made  to  determine  whether 
the  pumping  areas  should  be  included  within  the  project  upon  the 
basis  of  relative  cost.  The  cost  of  carriage  for  the  large  ])umpiug  units 
of  13,500  acres  and  21,300  acres  adjacent  to  the  Orland  i)roject  was 
estimated  at  $10  i)er  acre  in  excess  of  the  distribution  cost.  For  the 
remainder  of  the  pumping  areas  no  estimate  was  made  for  main  canals 
leadijig  from  the  ])umps,  as  these  were  considered  a  ])art  of  the  dis- 
Iribiition  system,  with  estimated  cost  of  pumping  i)lants  added.  Pump- 
ing plant  data  are  .shown  in  Table  26. 

.  As  indicated  on  Plates  2,  17,  IH  and  24,  it  is  proposed  to  lift  371 
second-feet  of  water  50  feet  from  the  main  canal  at  its  head  to  the  Red 
Bank  pump  canal  at  elevation  300,  which  is  about  the  highest  eleva- 
tion at  whicli  a  canal  can  be  constructed  without  getting  into  the 
rougher  country  farther  west.  Additional  lifts  are  ])roposed  at 
Thomes  Creek  to  laterals  at  elevations  300  and  320,  it  being  pro- 
])osed  to  carry  the  larger  canal  at  the  lower  elevation  to  avoid 
the  rougher  country. 

9— 506G7 


130  WATER  RESOURCES  OP   CALIFORNIA. 

The  pmui)iii^'-  plant  contaiii.s  lliree  elot'trically  driven  4S-incli  ceii- 
li-il'u^al  pmups.  delivering-  water  into  a  I>-foot  diameter  wood  stave 
pipeline  cihout  H  miles  in  leniitli  to  llie  head  of  the  hi<>li  line  eanal. 
The  eanal  is  a|)proxiiiiately  2.")  niih's  in  len.<:th  and  wastes  into  the 
canal  i'oi'  the  second  pnnipin^  unit   ne;ir  Kii-kwood.  via  Rice  Creek. 

Excavation,  concrete  lining  and  structures.  The  construction  of 
tlie  ])ro])osed  Ked  Uaidc  pump  canal  is  similar  to  that  of  the  main 
canal.  For  the  uppei-  4.:5  miles  north  of  Elder  Creek  the  excavation 
will  be  more  difficult  than  to  the  south,  and  the  estimated  unit  cost  has 
been  doubled.  As  indicated  on  Plate  26,  the  eanal  is  to  be  lined 
throuj^hont  with  plain  concrete  M  inches  thick.  All  structures  are 
assnmed  to  be  built  of  concrete  and  steel. 

Siphons.     Ten  siphons  are  e.stimated  at  the  followin<:  places: 

Ceyotc  Creek  ^IcClure  Creek 

Oat  Creek  Soiitli  Fork  McClure  Creek 

South  Fork  Oat  Creek  First  creek  south  of  Tlioines  Creek 

Elder  Creek  Second  creek  south  of  Themes  Creek 

Truckee  Creek  Third  creek  south  of  Tliomes  Creek 

Wasteways.  Wasteways  with  hand  operated  gates  are  proposed 
at  Thomes  Creek  and  Elder  Creek. 

Other  structures.     Other  structures  estimated  include: 

22  36-inch  diameter  culverts. 

2  flumes. 
1!»  checks. 

14  bridges  of  the  steel  I  beam  type. 

15  IS-inch  diameter  turnouts. 
33  12-inch  diameter  turnouts. 
r»0  miles  of  fence. 

2t>  miles  of  telephone  line  serving  nine  telephones. 

3  patrolmen's  quarters. 

Right  of  way.  It  is  estimated  that  313  acres  of  right  of  way  Avill 
be  re(|uire(l. 

EAST    SIDE    CANAL. 
(To    serve   7000   acres    gross   area    east   of    Red    Bluff.) 

Basis  of  estimates.  On  Plate  2  this  canal  is  shown  diverting 
directly  from  Iron  Canyon  reservoir.  In  Exhibit  6  it  is  described  as 
about  (i'l  miles  long,  diverting  at  Iron  Canyon  dam  at  elevation  300 
and  ending  at  the  northerly  corner  of  lot  35,  subdivision  No.  9,  of  the 
Los  ]\Iolinos  Land  Company's  tracts.  In  the  estimate  ])repared  by  the 
State  Department  of  Engineering  the  cost  of  this  canal  is  given  as 
$63,811,  including  20  per  cent  for  contingencies  and  extras.  In  order 
to  ])ut  this  estimate  u])on  the  same  basis  as  those  i)rei)ared  in  connection 
with  this  report,  additional  items  are  included,  and  the  figure  for  con- 
tingencies and  extras  was  increased  to  include  10  ))er  cent  for  engineer- 
ing and  administration  and  15  i)er  cent  for  contingencies.  A  summary 
of  the  revised  estimate  will  be  found  in  Pi-elimiiuiry  Estimate  No.  14. 

In  Table  S  the  maxinuim  capacity  of  the  canal,  including  a  15  per 
cent  increa.se  for  the  daily  i)eak  in  July,  is  86.4  second-feet.  The  esti- 
nuited  cost  of  excavation  and  concrete  lining  for  the  canal  of  74  second- 
feet  cai>acity  assumed  in  Exhibit  6  was  increased  by  10  ])er  cent  in 
Preliminarv  Estimate  No.  14  to  allow  for  the  increa.se  in  capacity.    The 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  131 

cost  of  items  added  "is  based  upon  tlie  estimated  cost  of  similar  features 
on  the  Red  Bank  ]Hini]i  canal. 

DISTRIBUTION    SYSTEM. 

Basis  of  estimate.  Funds  available  for  the  investigations  did  not 
permit  of  a  detailed  survey  and  estimate  of  cost  of  the  distribution 
system,  nor  were  such  surveys  and  cstiuuites  considered  necessary  at 
this  time,  since  costs  of  similar  construction  on  other  nearby  projects 
are  indicative  of  what  the  Iron  Canyon  system  may  be  expected  to 
cost.  Basin<>'  the  estimate  upon  the  cost  of  the  distribution  system  of 
the  Orland  project,  and  the  lirentwood  Di.strict  recently  completed  in 
the  lower  8an  Joaquin  Valley,  the  cost  of  the  Iron  Canyon  .system  is 
l)laced  at  a  total  of  $30  per  acre,  assuming  that  water  would  be  deliv- 
ered to  each  40-acre  tract  by  a  lateral  system  60  per  cent  of  which 
would  be  concrete  lined.  The  $30  is  as.sumed  as  a  charge  to  be  i)aid 
on  each  acre  within  the  i)roject  against  which  the  cost  of  the  project 
is  assessed  (95  per  cent  of  the  gross  area). 

DRAINAGE    SYSTEM. 

Requirement.  The  conclusions  of  the  1920  Irtm  Canyon  report 
regarding  drainage  are  quite  correct  as  far  as  the  Orland  project  is 
concerned.  It  has  always  been  maintained  that  with  the  natural  surface 
and  subdrainage  conditions  on  the  project,  together  with  the  intelligent 
ap]ilication  of  a  reasonable  amount  of  irrigation  water  as  well  as 
maintenance  of  the  natural  water  courses  traversing  the  project  area  in 
an  unobstructed  state,  no  drainage  problems  would  be  encountered. 
This  conclusion  has  been  borne  out  by  the  experience  of  14  years 
operation  of  the  project.  Where  see])age  or  water  logging  has  developed 
in  the  small  degree  that  it  has,  it  is  the  result  of  the  use  of  an  excessive 
amount  of  water  and  draining  the  surface  surplus  into  natural  water 
courses  which  have  been  permitted  by  the  various  landowners  to  become 
congested  with  vegetation  and  in  some  cases  obstructed  in  the  farm 
leveling  operations. 

Basis  of  estimate.  Natural  drainage  conditions,  such  as  exist 
on  the  Orland  project,  are  rather  the  exception  than  the  rule.  A  portion 
of  the  area  within  the  proposed  Iron  Canyon  project  will  be  devoted  to 
rice  culture,  in  connection  with  which  drainage  facilities  are  as 
imi)ortant  as  the  irrigation  works.  Although  only  about  one-fifth  of  the 
total  area  is  considered  suitable  for  rice  culture,  such  lands  are  nearly 
all  located  .south  of  Stony  Creek  so  that  the  bulk  of  the  drainage  Avater 
will  flow  into  the  Colusa  Basin  and  finally  into  the  drains  now  con- 
structed through  the  basin.  These  drains  would  ])robably  have  to  be 
enlarged  to  care  for  the  increased  flow  unless  some  other  disposition  is 
made  of  the  Iron  Canyon  drainage  Avater.  In  this  enlargement  con- 
sideration must  be  given  to  waste  water  from  the  project  canals  which 
in  an  emergency  might  equal  in  amount  the  carrying  capacity  of  the 
main  canal.  Use  of  the  drainage  canal  would  probably  be  permitted  by 
agreement  with  the  drainage  district  but  this  agreement  would  undoubt- 
edly involve  reimbursement  to  the  district  for  Avork  already  doiu^  in 
addition  to  the  cost  of  enlargement. 

It  is  not  likely  that  extensive  drainage  works  will  be  necessary  north 
of  mile  50  on  the  main  canal,  nor  will  drainage  be  required  on  all  areas 


132 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


south  of  there,  but  in  absence  of  accurate  classification  of  areas  it  is 
estimated  that  a  uniform  total  charge  of  $15  per  acre  should  provide  for 
any  construction  on  account  of  the  drainage  problem.  Cost  to  be  levied 
against  9")  per  cent  of  the  gross  area  -within  the  project. 

OPERATION    AND    MAINTENANCE— CAN AL    AND    DISTRIBUTION 

SYSTEM. 

Basis  of  estimate.  As  stated  previously,  it  seems  imperative  that 
the  rotation  system  of  irrigation  be  adopted  for  this  project  on  account 
of  the  long  carriage  system  without  any  regulating  reservoirs.  Although 
this  is  not  the  most  convenient  method  for  tlie  water  users,  it  undoubt- 
edly reduces  the  cost  of  operation  to  a  minimum.  The  cost  of  operation 
of  the  gravity  system  then  should  compare  favorably  with  the  minimum 
cost  on  other  Bureau  of  Reclamation  projects.  Since,  as  proposed,  the 
canal  is  to  be  constructed  with  water  surface  near  the  ground  level,  and 
as  a  generous  allowance  has  been  made  in  the  design  of  the  section  for 
growth  of  vegetation,  the  item  of  maintenance  should  also  be  com- 
paratively' low.  The  combined  operation  and  maintenance  of  the  system, 
exclusive  of  pumping,  should  therefore  compare  favorably  with  mini- 
mum costs  on  other  Bureau  of  Reclamation  projects,  and  should  never 
be  more  than  the  average.  The  cost  reports  for  1924  indicate  that  during 
the  years  1918  to  1924,  inclusive,  the  minimum  average  cost  per  acre 
irrigated  for  all  projects  was  $2.12  in  the  year  1922.  The  average  acre 
cost  for  the  Yakima-Sunuyside  project  during  the  period  1918  to  1924 
was  $1.47  per  acre  irrigated. 

Operation  and  maintenance  costs  on  the  Orland  project  and  Glenn- 
Colusa  Irrigation  District  are  of  particular  interest  as  the  areas  are 
adjacent  to  that  of  the  proposed  project.    The  costs  are  as  follows : 

Orland  project  operation  and  maintenance  for  1923,  which  is 
assumed  to  be  a  typical  year.    Total  cost  $33,081. 


Acres  irrigable 

Acres  irrigated' 

Acre-feet  delivered 

Acre-feet  diverted 

Number 

Unit  cost 

Number 

Unit  cost 

Number 

Unit  cost 

Number 

Unit  cost 

20,174 

$1.64 

15,500 

$2.13 

46,922 

$0.70 

73,191 

$0.45 

Costs  for  1924  not  given  as  during  that  year  the  Orland  project  suf- 
fered the  most  severe  water  sliortage  in  its  history. 

Glenn-Colusa  Irrigation  District  operation  and  maintenance  for 
1924,  which  was  more  or  less  a  typical  year,  although  the  amount  of 
water  diverted  and  the  area  of  irrigated  crops  were  considerably  less 
than  in  1920,  1921  and  1922.     Total  cost  $118,718.- 


Acres  irrigable 

Acre-feet  diverted 

Acre-feet  diverted,  exclusive 
of  pumping  expense 

Number 

Unit  cost 

Number 

Unit  cost 

Number 

Unit  cost 

116,599 

$1.02 

270,000 

$0  44 

270,000 

$0  28 

•Average  operation  and   maintenance   per  acre   irrigated,    191S   to   1924,   inclusive, 
?2.29. 

*  Includes  item  of  $43,582  for  pumping  plant  expense. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  133 

Cost  per  acre  irrigated  omitted  for  the  reason  that  much  of  the  area 
is  in  rice,  and  a  considerable  portion  in  1924  was  in  pasture. 

The  district  receives  its  irrigation  supply  by  pumping  from  the  Sacra- 
mento River  through  heads  ordinarily  varying  from  6  to  8  feet  during 
the  greater  part  ot"  tlie  irrigation  season. 

Estimated  Iron  Canyon  project  operation  and  maintenance  charges. 
As  sliOAvn  in  Table  8  the  -water  estimated  to  be  required  for  the  Iron 
Canyon  project  is  800,000  acre-feet  per  year.  Based  upon  the  above 
annual  costs  on  other  projects  it  appears  that  $0.50  per  acre-foot  of 
water  diverted  would  be  a  safe  estimate  for  application  to  the  proposed 
project,  exclusive  of  pumping.  Assuming  $0.50  an  acre  as  correct,  the 
annual  operation  and  maintenance  charge  would  be  $400,000  or  at  the 
rate  of  about  $1.55  per  acre  on  the  263,055  acres  against  which  it  is 
assumed  the  charges  will  be  assessed,  wiiicli  is  equivalent  to  about  $1.75 
per  acre  on  the  85  per  cent  of  the  gross  area  considered  irrigable. 

To  the  above  must  be  added  the  cost  of  operating  and  maintaining  the 
pumping  plants  shown  in  Preliminary  Estimate  No.  13  as  $299,950  per 
year;  equivalent  to  a  charge  of  about  $1.15  per  acre  distributed  over 
the  263,055  acres  against  which  costs  are  assessed.  The  resulting  total 
estimated  cost  of  operation  and  maintenance  for  the  Iron  Canyon 
project  is,  therefore,  at  the  rate  of  $2.70  on  each  acre  assumed  to  be 
assessed  (95  per  cent  of  the  gross  area). 

ANALYSIS     OF     ESTIMATED     COSTS. 

Iron  Canyon  reservoir.  Results  of  studies  made  to  determine  the 
relative  economy  of  raising  the  water  surface  in  the  reservoir  to  eleva- 
tions 400  and  405.5  may  be  summarized  as  follows: 

(a)  Estimated  cost  including  10  per  cent  overhead  and  15  per  cent 
contingencies : 


n^ 


To  raise  water  surface  from  elevation  392.5  to  405.5,  Preliminary  Estimate 

No.    17 .$748,000 

To  raise  water  surface  from  elevation  392.5  to  400,  Preliminary  Estimate 

No.  IG 18.3,000 

To  raise  water  surface  from  elevation  400  to  405.5 505,000 

There  would  be  no  extra  cost  for  right  of  way  and  little,  if  anj-, 
increase  in  operating  cost.  Bend  embankment  is  not  affected  as  free- 
board provided  is  against  floods. 

(b)  Estimated  annual  value  of  power  gained  by  raising  water  sur- 
face from  Elevation  400  to  405.5  upon  tlie  assumption  that  90  per  cent 
of  the  primary  and  55  per  cent  of  the  secondary  power  is  salable  at 
tlie  rate  of  4  mills  per  k.w.h.: 

Increase  in  revenue  from  primary  power iflOS.OOO 

Increase  in  i-evenue  from  secondary    power 30,600 

Total  annual  increase  in  revenue .$1.38,000 

Gross  annual  return  on  the  investment  =^  138,600-^565,000  =  24.5% 

No  estimate  was  made  of  the  increased  returns  that  would  accrue  by 
raising  the  normal  storage  elevation  from  392.5  to  400,  as  no  power 
study  was  made  for  water  surface  at  elevation  392.5,  but  the  amount 
would  bo  ooiisidorablv  in  excess  of  the  $138,600  sliown  above. 


134  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

Main  canal  between  diversion  dam  and  Mooney  Island  power 
plant.  In  the  .study  of  economics  of  the  Mooney  Island  power  plant 
various  estimates  Avere  ])repared  of  the  probable  cost  of  the  canal  to 
that  point.  A  summary  of  the  studies  will  be  found  in  Statement  A 
under  "Summary  of  Financial  Considerations"  following  this  analysis 
of  estimates. 

(a)  General  considerations.  ^Maximum  high  Avater  in  the  river 
reaches  an  ek'vation  approximately  27  feet  above  low  water,  and  since 
it  is  not  practicable,  on  account  of  the  topography,  nor  desirable  con- 
.sidering  tail  Avater  at  the  Iron  Canyon  poAA^er  plant,  to  divert  at  an 
elevation  of  more  than  about  15  feet  above  Ioav  Avater,  there  would  be 
required  a  high  Avater  dike  for  tlie  ])r()teetion  of  the  canal,  gradually 
decreasing  in  height  to  a  point  near  Mooney  Island  Slough,  Avhere  the 
regular  bank  of  the  canal  extends  above  high  AA'ater  in  the  river. 

Were  the  canal  to  be  lined  for  a  capacity  including  Avater  for  poAver 
development  at  JMooney  Island  the  difference  in  excavation  betAveen 
this  section  and  a  lined  section  not  carrying  jioAver  Avater  Avould  be 
slight  on  account  of  the  material  required  in  the  construction  of  the 
high  water  dike,  and  the  difference  in  cost  of  a  lined  canal  Avith,  or 
Avitliout,  poAver  Avould  consist  mainly  in  the  difference  in  cost  of  the 
lining.  AVith  an  unlined  canal  carrying  poAver  Avater  in  addition  to 
irrigation  Avater,  the  excavation  Avould  be  greatly  increased,  but  CA'en 
tlien  the  unlined  canal  Avould  result  in  a  material  saving  of  cost,  as 
Avill  be  shoAvn. 

(b)  Saving  effected  by  building  diversion  dam  to  raise  water 
surface  15  feet.  An  unlined  canal  Avith  bottom  Avidth  88  feet,  Avater 
depth  16.0  feet,  slopes  11 :1,  grade  of  .0001,  haA'ing  a  capacity  of  2833 
second-feet,  to  carry  irrigation  water  only,  and  without  a  diA'ersion 
dam  other  than  a  Ioav  Aveir  for  the  control  of  the  bed  of  the  river  at 
point  of  diA'ersion.  Avould  require  3.164,290  cubic  yards  of  excavation. 
Due  to  great  deptli  of  this  section  beloAV  the  top  of  the  liigh  Avater  dike, 
a  large  amount  of  second  handling  of  material  excavated  Avould  be 
re(iuired.  The  per  cent  of  gravel  and  the  chance  of  encountering  hard 
strata  Avould  be  greatly  increased.  Considering  these  factors  it  is 
doubtful  that  the  unit  cost  Avould  be  less  than  $0.40  per  cubic  yard, 
making  a 

Total    of $1.2(r..71(i 

Right  of  Wily.  11.5  acms  at  .$150 17,250 

$1,282,960 
Eugineering  aud  administration,  10% 128,296 

.$1,411,262 
Coutingeneies,  15% 211,688 

Total  canal $1,622,950 

Diversion  works — Estimate  No.  7 030,000 

Total    .$2,252,950 

Considering  a  diversion  dam  construetefl  to  raise  the  Avater  surface 
15  feet,  but  Avith  no  alloAvance  macU'  for  i)OAver  at  Mooney  Island,  the 
total  excavation  for  the  unlined  canal  1.1  feet  liigher  amounts  to 
763,000  cubic  yards,  Avith  212,740  cubic  yards  of  borroAV  in  addition, 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  135 

required  for  completing  tlie  lii^li  water  dike.  Tliere  Avovdd  be  a  very 
small  amount  of  second  liandliny  of  material  excavated  and  the  per 
cent  of  gravel  excavation  Avould  be  greatly  decreased,  but  to  cover 
possibility  of  encountering  hard  strata,  this  excavation  is  estimated  at 
$0.30  per  cubic  yard,  witii  $0.1.")  per  cubic  yard  for  bf)ri-o\v.  making  a 

Total  for  excavation   of ."j^'JOU.slO 

Right  of  way,  115  acres  at  .$150 17,2.10 

.<:jts.<h;o 

Enj^inceriiiir   and   adiiiinistratioii.   10% "JT.so*; 

$305,866 
Contingencies,    15%    45,S71) 

Total    canal ^851.745 

Divei-sion    works — Estimate   No.   6 1.338.0(X) 

Total    $1,684,745 

The  saving  effected  by  bnilding  the  diversion  dam  to   raise   the 

water  surface  1~>  feet  is.  therefore $568,205 

fc"!  Reduction  in  cost  of  pumping  effected  by  building-  diversion 
dam  to  raise  water  surface  15  feet.  In  addition  to  the  saving 
of  $568,205  eifected  by  the  construction  of  the  diversion  dam  there  is 
a  saving  in  the  cost  of  power  required  for  pumping  water  to  the  Red 
Bank  pump  canal  since  the  construction  of  the  diversion  dam  results  in 
a  reduction  of  15  feet  in  the  lift,  the  saving  in  power  amounting  to 
1,980,000  k.w.h.  per  year.  At  $0.01  per  k.w.h.  the  monetary  saving 
would  be  at  the  rate" of  about  $20,000  a  year,  or  a  total  of  $400,000 
in  the  twenty-year  ])eriod  during  which  construction  costs  are  assumed 
to  be  repaid.  This  is  27  per  cent  of  the  estimated  cost  of  the  diversion 
dam  built  without  provision  for  power  development  at  Mooney  Lsland 
Slough,  as  shown  in  Preliminary  E.stimate  No.  6.  In  Statement  A 
which  follows  no  consideration  is  given  to  the  above  item  of  economy 
for  the  reason  that  the  saving  is  one  which  may  be  assumed  ai)plicable 
to  the  cost  of  operation  rather  than  to  cost  of  construction. 

In  all  discussions  of  the  value  of  power  that  have  been  presented,  it 
has  been  assumed  that  the  output  w^ould  be  sold,  at  the  switchboard, 
to  one  of  the  distributing  comjianies.  It  has  also  been  assumed  that 
power  for  pumping  would  be  rei)urchased  at  $0.01  jier  k.w.h.  Any 
other  method  of  handling  the  disposition  of  the  power  will  alter  the 
estimates  made. 

(d)  Increased  cost  to  build  the  first  4.7  miles  of  unlined  canal 
to  include  power  water.  In  order  to  include  water  for  development 
of  ])ower  at  Mooney  Island,  the  ca])acity  of  the  canal  must  be  more 
than  doubled  to  carry  6578  second-feet  (see  Plate  25).  Tiie  excavation 
for  an  unlined  canal  would  be  increased  to  2,012,267  cid^ic  yards,  with 
about  50,000  cubic  yards  of  borrow.     On  account  of  the  lai-ge  amount 


1;{G  WATER  RESOURCES  OP  CALIFORNIA. 

of  second  handling  of  material,  this  excavation  has  been  estimated  at 
!r0.85  per  cubic  yard,  and  $0.15  per  cubic  yard  for  Imrrow,  making  a 

Total    of -STll.TOf) 

Right  of  way,  198.4  acres  at  $150 29,760 

$741,555 
Engineering   nnd    administration,    10% 74,155 

.$815,710 
Contingencies,    15% 122,345 

Total    canal .$.938,055 

Diversion   works.    Estimate   No.  4 1,410,000 

Total    $2,-348,055 

The    increased    cost    of   constniction    due   to   building    the   first   4.7 

miles  of  unlined  main  canal  to  include  power  water  is,  therefore-     $617,770 

(o)  Saving  effected  by  building  the  first  4.7  miles  of  canal,  carry- 
ing irrigation  and  power  water,  unlined.  In  the  plan  most  favor- 
ably considered  it  is  proposed  to  build  the  main  canal  to  include  irriga- 
tion and  power  water  between  the  diversion  dam  and  Mooney  Island 
power  plant  unlined  for  the  reason  that  there  is  no  assurance  that  a 
lined  canal  could  be  Aveeped  sufficiently  to  prevent  flotation  of  tlie 
lining.  This  is  particularly  true  of  a  canal  diverting  at  river  grade, 
in  which  case  the  bottom  of  the  canal  would  be  below  low  water  level, 
but  in  either  case  it  would  be  below  high  water  in  tlie  river.  If  lined, 
reinforced  concrete  not  less  than  4  inches  thick  would  be  required.  An 
estimate  was  prepared  of  a  lined  canal  to  Mooney  Island  Slough  with 
a  47-foot  bottom  width  and  designed  to  carry  a  16-foot  depth  of  water, 
for  comparison  with  the  unlined  section.  Both  sections  are  shown  on 
Plate  25.    A  summary  of  the  estimate  for  the  lined  canal  is  as  follows: 

Excavation    989.400  cubic  yards  at       .$0..3O $296,820 

Borrow    179..500  cubic  yards  at         0.15 20.925 

Reinforced    lining    33,784  cubic  yards  at       19.00 641.896 

Right   of   way 170.1  acres           at     150.00 25.515 


$991,156 
Engineering  and  administration,  10% 99,115 


$1,090,271 
Contingencies,    15% 163,540 


Total  canal _•  ,$l,2.i3.Sll 

Diversion  works— Estimate  No.  4 1,410,000 


Total .$2,663,800 

The  money  saved  by  building  tlie  canal  with  capacity  to  include 
power  water  as  far  as  Mooney  Island  Slough,  unlined,  is  therefore  esti- 
mated to  be  $;n 5,745. 

Seepage  loss  in  the  4.7  miles  of  unlined  canal  is  of  minor  considera- 
tio]i  since  tlie  total  seepage  loss,  calculated  upon  the  basis  of  1.5  feet 
in  depth  over  the  wetted  canal  surface,  is  only  al)out  75  second-feet,  or 
1.1.5'f   of  llif  cjipaeity  of  the  canal. 

(f)  Increased  cost  to  build  the  first  4,7  miles  of  lined  canal  to 
include  power  water,     Tlie  cost  of  const nieting  a  lined  canal  between 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  137 

the  diversion  dam  built  to  raise  the  water  surface  15  feet  and  Mooney 
Island  power  plant,  but  to  carry  irrigation  water  only,  was  estimated 
for  comparison  with  the  lined  canal  enlarged  to  carry  power  water. 
A  canal  section  was  consid(M"ed  having  a  bottom  width  of  35.0  feet , 
water  depth  12.6  feet,  side  slopes  11  .1,  grade  of  .00015,  and  a  rein- 
forced concrete  lining  4  inches  thick.  The  .estimate  is  summarized 
as  follows : 

Excavation    533,000  cubic  yards  at       $0.30 ipl.jD.UOO 

Borrow    437,600  cubic  yards  at         0.15 Go,G40 

Lining,    reinforced 24.096  cubic  yards  at       19.00 409.224 

Right  of  way 115  acres  at     150.00 17,250 


$712,014 

Engineering   and    administration,    10% 71,202 


.$783,216 
Contingencies,    15% 117,484 


Total  canal $900,700 

Diversion    works — Estimate    No.    6 1.333.000 


Total    $2,233,700 

Considering  lined  canals,  the  cost  of  including  water  for  power 
development  would,  according  to  tlie  estimates,  be  $430,100.  A  lined 
canal  was  not  adopted.     The  figures  are  given  for  comparison  only. 

Power  used  in  pumping  to  project  areas.  Since  in  the  present 
plan  it  is  proposed  to  supply  by  pumps  much  of  the  land  tliat  under 
the  plan  proposed  in  the  1920  report  would  have  been  served  by 
gravity,  it  is  proper  to  compare  the  amount  of  power  consumed  in 
pumping  with  the  power  that  is  gained  b}^  making  all  the  water  used  in  the 
irrigation  of  tlie  project  available  for  power  development  at  the  storage 
dam.  As  shown  in  Table  18  the  average  annual  gain  in  power  would, 
for  the  years  of  record  of  river  discharge,  have  been  94,313,700  k.w.h. 
Power  required  for  pumping  project  water,  as  shown  in  Table  26,  is 
18,865,000  k.w.li.  per  year.  The  balance  in  favor  of  pumping  is  there- 
fore 75,448,700  k.w.h.  per  year.  If  it  is  assumed  that  all  of  this  balance 
is  secondary  power,  55  per  cent  of  which  might  be  sold  at  4  mills  per 
k.w.li.,  the  average  annual  revenue  gained  would  ])e  approximately 
$166,000.  In  addition  the  Red  Bank  diversion  makes  pos.sil)le  the 
Mooney  Island  power  plant  and  any  profits  that  accrue  from  that 
source  must  be  placed  as  a  credit  to  the  plan  of  the  low  line  canal. 

If  the  15-foot  drop  just  below  Mooney  Island  jiower  plant  were 
utilized  for  the  development  of  power,  the  results  would  be  about  as 
follows : 

Total  project  water  passing  per  year 689,000  acre-feet 

Potential  power  at  S0%  efficiency 8.500.000  k.w.li. 

July  output,  22%  of  seasonal 1,870,000  k.w.h.  or 

2,500,000  h.p.  hrs. 
Equivalent  to  3300  h.p.  installed  capacity. 

This  amount  of  power  is  45  per  cent  of  tlic  total  power  required 
for  all  project  pumping  shown  in  tables  26  and  27,  but  it  would  be 
of  no  partioular  value  uulil  the  secondary  powt'i-  developed  at  tlie  Iron 


138  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

Canyon  plant  had  been  absorbed  in  the  market.  Thi.s  is  shown 
g:raphieally  on  Plate  10  on  which,  for  the  plan  considered  best  (fourth 
column  of  <iraplis  from  the  left),  it  is  indicated  that,  in  an  average 
year,  all  of  tiie  project  pumping  load  is  sui)plie(l  by  secondary  power, 
with  the  exception  of  a  very  small  amount  in  the  month  of  September, 
it  is  not  probable  that  dt^velopment  of  power  at  the  drop,  to  supply 
energy  for  pumping  in  the  extremely  dry  years,  would  be  a  paying 
proposition. 

Other  drops  on  tlie  main  canal  might,  in  tlu^  final  canal  location,  be 
combined  in  one  drop  and  utilized  in  the  development  of  additional 
power. 

SUMMARY   OF   FINANCIAL   CONSIDERATIONS. 

A  summary  of  the  studies  showing  the  economy  of  building  the 
diversion  dam  to  raise  the  surface  15  feet ;  constructing  a  power  plant 
at  Mooney  Island  Slough;  and  building  the  first  4.7  miles  of  main 
canal  to  the  Mooney  Island  power  plant  unlined  is  shown  in  State- 
ment A. 

STATEMENT  A. 

Summary    of    Various    Economic    Studies    Made    of    Diversion    Works,    iVIooney    Island 
Power  Plant  and    Main   Canal   Between   Them. 

Diversion  works — 

Water   Surface  Elevation  250  without  power.  Estimate  No.   6 $1,333,000 

Water  Surface  Elevation   235  witliout  power,  Estimate  No.   7 630,000 

Increased  cost  to   raise  water  surface   15   feet $703,000 

Water    Surface    Elevation    250    with    power.    Estimate    No.    4 $1,410,000 

Water  Surface  Elevation  250  without  power.  Estimate  No.   6 1,333,000 

Increased    cost    to    divert    power    water $77,000 

Main  canal  to  Mooney  Island  power  plant — 

Water  Surface  Elevation  235,  unlined,  witliout  power $1,622,950 

Water  Surface  Elevation   250,   unlined,   without  power 351,745 

Saving  effected  by  raising  unlined  canal  15  feet $1,271,205 

Water  Surface  Elevation  250,  lined,  without  power $900,700 

Water  Surface  Elevation  250,  unlined,  without  power 351,745 

Saving  effected  by  raising  unlined  canal   15  feet $548,955 

Water  Surface  Elevation  250,  lined,  with  power $1,253,800 

Water  Surface  Elevation  250,  unlined,  with  power 938,055 

Saving  effected  by  building  unlined  canal,  with  power $315,745 

Diversion  works  and  unlined  canal  to   Mooney  Island  power  plant  combined — 

Water    Surface    Elevation    235,    without    power $2,252,950 

Water  Surface  Elevation  250,  without  power 1,684,745 

Saving  effected  by  raising  canal  15  feet $568,205 

Water  Surface  Elevation  250,  with  power $2,348,055 

Water  Surface  Elevation   250,   without  power 1,684,745 

Increased  cost  to  provide  for  power  water $663,310 

Diversion  works,  unlined   canal  and   Mooney   Island   power  plant  combined — 

Increased  cost  to  provide   for  power  water $663,310 

Mooney  Island  power  plant.  Estimate  No.   8 928,000 

Total   cost   chargeable   to   power   development   at   Mooney   Island 

plant $1,591,310 

Revenue  from   Mooney  Island  power  plant — 

Gross  annual  revenue  at  4  mills  per  k.w.h.,  Table  25 $213,600 

Annual    plant    charge.    Estimate    No.    9,    plus    half    of    depreciation    of 

radial  gates.  Estimate  No.  5 47,150 

Net    annual    revenue $166,450 

Return  on  investment  of  $1,591,310 10.5  per  cent 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


139 


.         The  above  co]ni)arisoiis  sliow  that  a  savinjr  in  total  const  met  ion  cost 
I     is  eft'ected  by  building'  the  diversion  dam  to  raise  tlie  watei'  surface  lo 
1      feet,  and  that  the  con.struetion  of  the  ]\Iooney  Island  power  jjlant  will 
result  in  economy. 

STATEMENT    B. 

Summary  of   Estimated   Cost,   Power   Output  and    Revenue, 
(a)    Iron  Canyon  reservoir  and  power  plant. 

Cost  exclusive  of  depreciation  on  concrete   in  dam   during  construction  repayment 
period. 

Total  cost.  Iron  Canyon  Dam  and  Reservoir : 

Dam  and  power  plant,  Estimate  No.  2 $19,875,000 

Reservoir  rig-lit  of  way,   rOstimate  No.   1 4,897,500 


Tcjtal     $24,772,500 

Annual  repayments,   5% 1,238,625 

Power  output,  see  Table  25. 

Average  annual   gross   primary   power,    330,720,000   k.w.h. 

Average  annual  salal)Ie   primary   power,    90'-^   of   gross 297,650,000  k.w.h. 

Average  annual  gross  secondary  power,  254,170,000  k.w.h. 

Average  annual  salable  secondary  power,  55%  of  gross 139,794,000  k.w.h. 


Average  annual   total  salable   power 437,444,000  k.w.h. 

Estimated  Annual  Revenue. 


Sale  price  per  k.w.h. 


?0.0035 


$0,004 


$0.0045 


$0,005 


$0,006 


Gross  revenue  from  power  at  indicated  sale  price 

.\nnual  power  plant  charges,  Estimate  No.  3 


$1,.531,054 
265,390 


$1,749,776 
265,390 


$1,968,498 
265.390 


$2,187,220 
265,390 


$2,624,664 
265,390 


Net  revenue 

Annual  repayment  on  construction  cost  of  reservoir  and 
power  plant 


$1,265,664 
1,238,625 


Sl.484,386 
1,238,625 


$1,703,108 
1,238,625 


$1,921,830 
1,238,025 


.$2,359,274 
1,238,625 


.\nnual  surplu-s  available  for  payment  of  other  project 
charges 


$27,039 


$245,761 


$464,483 


$683,205 


$1,120,649 


(b)    Diversion    dam,    Mooney    Island    power    plant    and    main    canal    between    them    to 
provide  for  power  water. 

Cost  exclusive  of  depreciation  on  concrete  (except  in  superstructure  of  powerhouse) 
during   construction    repayment    period. 

Total  cost,  diversion  dam  and  canal  to  Mooney  Island,  chargeable  to 
power ; 

Statement  A $663,310 

Mooney  Island  power  plant.  Estimate  No.  8 928,000 


Total  construction  cost  for  Mooney  Island  power  development-  $1,591,310 
Annual  repayments,   oVc 79,565 

Power  output,  see  Table  25. 

Average  annual  gross  power,  all  primary 59,333,000  k.w.h. 

Average  annual  salable  power,  all  primary,  90%  of  gross 53,400,000  k.w.h. 


Estimated  Annual   Revenue. 


Sale  price  per  Ic.w.h 

$0.0035 

$0,004 

$0.0045 

$0,005 

$0,006 

$186,900 
47,150 

$213,600 
47,150 

$240,300 
47,150 

$267,000 
47,150 

$320,400 

.■Vnnual  plant  charges.  Estimate  No.  9 

47,150 

Net  revenue  .                             

139,750 
79,565 

166,450 
79,565 

193,150 
79,565 

219,850 
79,565 

273,2.50 

Annual  construction  repayments 

79,565 

Balance  applicable  to  other  project  charges          

$60,185 
84,237 

$86,885 
84,237 

$113,585 
84,237 

$140,285 
84,237 

$193,685 

Repayment  charges  on  remainder  of  diversion  dam  and  canal 
to  Mooney  Island,  5  per  cent  of  $1,084,745,  Statement  .\. 

84,237 

.\nnual  surplus  from  Mooney  Island  plant  available  for 

•$24,052 

$2,648 

$29,348 

$56,048 

$109,448 

•Deficit. 


140  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

(c)    Annual  surplus  revenue,   Iron  Canyon  and   Mooney  Island  power  plants  combined. 


f^nlp  nripp  r>pr  k  w  h                      

$0.0035 

$0,004 

$0.0045 

$0,005 

SO  006 

$27,039 
•24,052 

$245,761 
2,648 

$464,483 
29,348 

$683,205 
56,048 

$1,120,649 

Moonpv  Island              

109,448 

of  other 

Total  cDinbined  surplus  available  for  payment 

$2,987 

$248,409 

$493,831 

$730,253 

$1,230,097 

•Deficit. 

Item  (c)  of  Statement  B  indicates  tliat  upon  the  basis  of  twenty 
equal  annual  repayments  of  construction  costs,  without  interest,  the 
revenue  derived  from  the  sale  of  ])0wer  generated  at  the  two  project 
])lants  would  be  sufficient  to  meet  the  construction  cost  of  Iron  Canyon 
reservoir  and  power  plant,  tlie  diversion  dam,  INIooney  Island  power 
l)lant,  and  the  main  canal  to  ]\Iooney  Island  power  ])lant;  and  in  addi- 
tion would  be  sufficient  to  pay  the  cost  of  operation  and  maintenance 
of  the  above  various  features,  except  depreciation  on  concrete  in  the 
storage  and  diversion  dams,  and  still  leave  a  sur])lus  which  coukl  be 
used  to  help  meet  the  repayment  of  the  construction  cost  of  the  balance 
of  the  project. 

Taxes.  In  the  following  discussions,  which  involve  the  cost  of 
operation,  maintenance  and  the  annual  repayment  of  construction 
charges,  no  account  is  taken  of  state,  county  or  any  other  taxes  which 
might  be  a.ssessed  against  the  land. 

Depreciation  on  concrete.  In  all  of  the  cost  analyses  deprecia- 
tion on  concrete,  with  the  exception  of  that  in  the  power  house  super- 
structures, is  excluded  during  the  period  of  repayment  of  construction 
costs  with  the  idea  of  reducing  the  burden  on  the  landowners  during 
the  early  years  of  project  operation.  It  is  believed  that  this  point  of 
view  is  justified  for  the  reason  that  at  the  time  the  construction  costs 
are  fully  repaid  there  should  be  a  large  revenue  from  the  sale  of 
power,  more  than  ample  to  build  up  a  sinking  fund  toward  the  replace- 
ment of  concrete  structures.  Any  departure  from  this  viewpoint  will 
alter  practically  all  of  the  figures. 

Estimated  gross  cost  of  project.  Table  28  is  a  summary  of  esti- 
mated gross  cost  of  the  project  based  upon  the  assumption  that  power 
would  be  developed  at  Iron  Canyon  dam  and  at  Mooney  Island  Slough ; 
that  tlie  diversion  dam  at  Red  Bank  Creek  would  be  built  to  raise  the 
water  surface  15  feet ;  and  that  the  main  canal  between  the  diversion 
dam  and  iMooney  Island  power  plant  Avould  be  built  unlined  with  a 
capacity  to  carry  both  iiM'igation  and  jiower  water. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


141 


TABLE  28.     ESTIMATED  GROSS  COST     IRON  CANYON  PROJECT. 
Gross  area  of  project,  276,900  acres. 

Ki'paymcnl  in  20  im|u:iI  annual  installments  without  interest,  a8.«ossrd  at  the  same  rate  [ht  acre  anainst  95  per  cent 
of  the  gross  area  or  2t)3.055  acres.  Costs  include  overhead  charges  and  contingencies.  No  credits  have  been  allowi><i 
for  receipts  from  power  sales.    For  net  costs  including  credits  for  receipts  from  power  sales,  see  Table  29. 


Item 


9. 
10. 
11. 


12. 
13. 
14. 


15. 
16. 
17. 

18. 


Iron  Canyon  reservoir  and  power  plant 

Diversion  dam 

Main  canal  to  Mooney  Island 

Mooncy  Island  power  plant 

Subtotal,  items  2.  3  and  4 

Subtotal,  items  1,  2,  3  and  4 

Main  canal  below  Mooney  Island,  exclusive  of  lining. 

Main  canal  lining 

Red  Bank  pump  canal 

Red  Bank  pump  plants 

Remainder  of  pump  plants 

Carriage  for  pump  areas  near  Orland  project 

7,000-acre  East  Side,  unit 


Subtotal  carriage  system 

Project  administration  buildings 

Distribution  system 

Drainage  system 

Total  construction  items  1  to  14,  inclusive. 


Operation  and  maintenance  canals  and  laterals 

Operation  and  maintenance  pumping  plants 

Depre:iition  on  flood  control  gates.  Iron  Canyon  dam. 

Depreciation  on  metal  work  at  diversion  dam,  except 

$900  charged  to  power 


Total  gross  cost  per  acre  per  year. 


Reference 


Estimates  1  and  2 . 

Estimate  4 

Estimate  10 

Estimates 


Gross  cost 


$24,772,500 

1.410,000 

938.055 

928.000 


Estimate  10. 
Estimate  10. 
Estimate  11. 
Estimate  12. 
Estimate  12. 
Page  129  .. 
Estimate  14 . 


Estimate  15. 
Page  131... 
Page  131 .. . 


Page  132... 
Page  133... 
Estimate  3. 

Estimate  5 


$3.276,0.55 
28,048,555 

S5,798,255 
7,853,545 
1,088,132 
452,079 
496,776 
348.000 
134,000 


$16,170,787 

$83,500 
7,891,650 
3.945,825 


856,140,317 


$60,735  per  yr. 
519,200  per  yr. 


Gross  costs  per  acre 


Total 


$94.17 
5.36 
3.56 
3  53 


$12.45 
106.62 

$22.04 
29.85 


Annua! 


$4.71 
.27 
.18 
.17 


$61.47 

$0.32 
30.00 
15.00 


$213.41 


$0  62 
5.33 

$1.10 
1.49 
.21 
.09 
.09 
.07 
.02 


$3.07 

$0.02 

1.50 

.75 

$10.67 

$1 
1 


aa 

15 

.23 

.07 


$13.67 


Estimated  net  cost  of  project.  In  arriving  at  the  probable  net 
cost  of  the  project,  account  should  be  taken  of  the  surplus  derived 
through  the  sale  of  power.  Items  1,  2,  3  and  4  of  Table  28  are  not  only 
self-supporting,  but,  as  shown  in  Statement  B,  yield  a  surplus  which 
may  be  used  to  help  pay  the  cost  of  other  items.  Applying  the  surplus 
in  this  manner  results  in  reducing  the  cost  of  the  project,  as  shown  in 
Table  29. 


TABLE  29.     ESTIMATED  NET  CONSTRUCTION  AND  OPERATION  COSTS, 

IRON  CANYON  PROJECT. 

Exclusive  of  depreciation  on  concrete,  with  exception  of  that  in  power  house  superstructures,  as  noted  on  page  140. 
(a)  Project  cost. 


Sale  price  of  power  per  k.w.h 

$0,004 

$0.0045 

$0,005 

$56,140,317 
28,048,555 

$56,140,317 
28,048.555 

$56,140,317 

Self-supporting  features,  items  1  to  4,  inclusive.  Table  28 

28.048,5.55 

Cost  of  balance  of  project,  items  5  to  14,  inclusive.  Table  28 

.\nnual  s  jrpLis  accumulated  for  20  years,  item  (c)  Statement  B 

$28,091,762 
4,968.180 

$23,123,582 

$28,091,762 
9,876,620 

$28,091,762 
14.785,060 

Net  cost  of  Droiect                                             

$18,215,142 

$13,306,702 

(b)  Net  cost  per  acre  assumed  to  be  assessed  equally  against  263.055  acres 


Net  cost  of  project 

Sale  price  of 

Total  net 
repayments 

Per  acre 

power 

Total 

20  annual  installments 

Constrjction 

Operation  and 
maintenance 

Depreciation 
on  gates 

Total 

$0,004 
I.L     .0045 
.005 

$23,123,582 
18,215,142 
13,306,702 

$87.90 
69.24 
50.59 

$4.40 
3.46 
2.53 

$2.70 
2.70 
2.70 

$0.30 
.30 
.30 

$7.40 
6.46 
6.53 

142 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


Comparison  of  cost  of  various  units  of  the  project.  In  making 
tliis  comparison  tlic  cost  oi'  items  1,  2,  3  and  4,  Table  28,  Avliich  are  self- 
supjiortinp:,  Avill  be  omitted  and  for  simplicity,  the  comparison  Avill  be 
made  ui)on  the  basi.s  of  jrross  construction  costs  and  these  eo.sts  will  in 
turn  be  sliowii  in  Table  W,  which  is  a  summary  of  the  net  cost  of  the 
various  units  including;-  oi)erati()n,  maintenance,  depreciation  and  credits 
from  the  sale  of  power. 

The  total  cost  of  the  main  canal  on  the  west  side  of  the  valley,  south 
of  Mooney  Island  ]wwer  ])laut,  is  shared  alike  by  prravity  and  pumping 
areas,  Avitli  the  exception  of  the  Red  Bank  pump  unit  Avhich  is  con- 
sidered separately.  The  estimated  cost  of  the  main  canal  below  Mooney 
Island  is : 

Items   .'i  and   6,  Table   28 $13,651,800 

Total   project  area,   Plate   2 276,900  acres 

East  side  gravity  area , 7,000  acres 


West   side   area 269,900  acres 

Red  Bank  pump  area 39,350  acres 


Gross  area  served  by  main  canal 230,550  acres 

Area  assessed,   95% 219,025  acres 

Cost  per  acre  $62.33,  or  20  installments  of  $3.12. 


(a)  Whole  project,  based  upon  the  assumption  that  the  total 
construction  cost  will  be  a.ssessed  equally  against  95  per  cent  of  the 
gross  project  area. 

Construction  cost,  items  1  to  14,  Table  28 $56,140,317 

Self-.supporting  features,  items  1  to  4,  Table  28 28,048,555 


Balance  of  project,  items  5  to  14,  Table  28 $28,091,762 

Cost  per  acre,  items  5  to  14,  Table  28 106.79 

Annual  repayment  per  acre  on  basis  of  263,055  acres 5.34 


(b)  West  side  gravity  lands. 


West  side  area  served  by  main  canal 230,550  acres 

Pumping  areas  other  than  Ked  Bank  unit,  Plate  2 55,116  acres 


Gross  area  served  by  gravity 175,434  acres 

Gross  area  assessed,  95% 166,660  acres 


Item 

Cost  per 
acre 

20  annual 
installments 

roristnution  cost  of  main  canal  as  previously  siiown  for  219,025  acres 

Distribution  system,  Tal)le  28 

S62..33 

30  00 

15  00 

32 

$3.12 
1  50 

Urainage  system.  Table  28 

.75 

Project  atimi.iistration  buildings,  Table  28 

.02 

Total  construction  cost,  assessed  against  166,660  acres 

$107.65 

$5.39 

(c)  Red  Bank  pump  unit.  The  Red  Bank  pump  unit  is  prac- 
tically a  distinct  jjroject,  not  de])ending  u])on  the  main  gravity  canal. 
While  the  diversion  dam  is  utilized  to  eft'ect  a  saving  of  15  feet  in  the 
lift,  this  feature  is  not  essential.  It  does,  however,  reduce  the  power 
requirements,  which  would  be  27  per  cent  greater  if  the  intake  were  at 
the  i)resent  river  level. 


DEVELOPMEXT  OF  UfPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


143 


Gross  area,  Plate  2__ _- 

Gross  area  assessed,  95  per  cent. 


39,350  acres 
37,380  acres 


Item 

Total  cost 

$1,088,132 
452  079 

Cost  per 
acre 

20  annual 
in!<tallments 

Pump  canals  i  tem  7,  Table  28 

$29  12 

12  10 

30  00 

15.00 

.32 

$1  46 

Pumping  plants,  item  8.  Table  28 

60 

Distribution  system  Table  28 

1  50 

Drainage  svstem  Table  28  

.75 

Project  administration  buildings.  Table  28 

.02 

Totil  construction  cost,  assessed  against  37.380  acres 

$86.54 

$4  33 

(d)  Pump  units  immediately  north  and  south  of  Orland  project. 

Gross  area,   Plate   i' 34, Sou  acres 

Gross  area  ajssessed,  95% 33,060  acres 


Item 


Construction  cost  of  main  canal  as  under  gravity  lands 

Pump  canals,  page  129 

Pumping  plants,  Estimate  No.  12: 

Sta.  1175+Overhead  and  contingencies 

Sta.  227H-Overhead  and  contingencies 

Second  lift +Overhead  and  contingencies 


Total  pumping  plants 

Distribution  system,  Table  28 

Drainage  system.  Table  28 

Project  administration  buildings.  Table  28 . 


Totalcanstruction  cost,  assessed  against  33,060  acres. 


Total  cost 


$77,241 

221,045 

65,224 


$363,510 


Cost  per 
acre 


$62.33 
10.00 


11.00 

30.00 

15.00 

.32 


$128.65 


20  annual 
installments 


S3  12 
.50 


.00 

1  50 
.75 
.02 


$6.44 


(e)  Pump  units  south  of  Willows.  As  stated  on  page  129,  the 
canal  system  to  serve  these  areas  is  considered  a  part  of  the  distribu- 
tion system  with  pumping  plants  added.  The  estimated  cost  to  serve 
these  lands  is  as  follows : 

Gross  area,  Plate  2 20,316  acres 

Gross  area  assessed,  95% 19,300  acres 


Item 


Constrjction  cost  of  main  canal  as  under  gravity  lands 
Pumping  plants,  Estimate  No.  12; 

Sta.  3260+Overhe3d  and  contingencies 

Sta.  4.307-(-Overheid  and  contingenciei 

Sta.  470j+0verhead  and  contingencies 

Sta.  4fl76+0verhead  and  contingencies 


Total,  pumping  plmts 

Distribution  system.  Table  28 

Drainage  system.  Table  28 

Project  admi  listration  buildings.  Table  28. 


Total  construction  cost,  assessed  against  19,300  ?>cres. 


Total  cost 


.?19.810 

5.741 

13.371 

94,344 


$133,266 


Cost  per 
acre 


$62.33 


6.90 

30.00 

15.00 

.32 


$114.55 


20  annual 
installments 


$3.12 


35 

1  50 

.75 

.02 


$5.74 


(f)  East  side   gravity  lands. 


Gross  area,   Plate  2 

Gross  area  assessed,  95%. 


7000  acres 
6650  acres 


Item 


Total  cost 


Cost  per 
acre 


20  annual 
installments 


Constructon  cost  of  canal.  Estimate  No.  14, 

Distribution  system.  Tabic  28 

Drainage  system.  Table  28 

Project  administration  buildings.  Table  28.  . 


$134,000 


$20.15 

30.00 

15.00 

.32 


$1  01 

1.50 
.75 
02 


Totalconstructioncost  assessed  against  6,650 acres. 


$65.47 


$3  28 


14-i 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF   CAIjIFORNIA. 


i  «.= 


-   Q.   X 


o   cn   5 


it 

II 

Ui 

C 

c 

-< 

CO  w 

« 

CO 

■« 

^ 

-*• 

Pump  units 

south  of  Willows, 

Hi.'JOOacres 

C 
C 
< 

o 

5 

WD 

Pump  units 
near  Oriand, 
33,060  acres 

"a 

3 
C 
C 
< 

-<*♦  »0        Ci  CO 

o 

2 

e2 

00 

Red  Bank 
pump  unit, 
37,380  acres 

3 
C 
C 
■< 

CO  «o       coo 

CO  »C         CI  CO 

Tf   1-1            CO 

ft* 

o 

1 

oo 

.ti    CO 

3 

c: 

B 

-< 

cs  »c 
co»o 

« 

o 

CO 

o 

Sco" 

—  to 

"3 

3 

a 
c 
< 

co^o       — 

CO 

o 

CO 

"3 
o 

CO 

o 

c 
c- 
c 
.£ 

e. 

c 

1 
c5 

QC 
a 

s 

Si 

C 

c 

OQ 

c 

c 
a 

c 

§ 

c 
c 

1 

C 

oo 

d 
.H 

2 

a 

03 

"S 
E 

3 
U 

£  c 

=z 

-  E 
-1 

QC 

<N 

■o 
OC 

c 
r- 

CC 

E 

1 

1 

cr 

c 

U1 

o 

E 


E 


oo  CO 

$0  94 
9.59 

1.88 
8.65 

2.81 
7.72 

$0.94 
10.20 

1.88 
9.32 

2.81 
8.39 

SO.  94 
9.17 

1.88 
8  23 

2  81 
7.30 

SO.  94 
6,30 

1.88 
5.36 

2.81 
4.43 

$0.94 
7.40 

1.88 
6.46 

2.81 
5.53 

03 

'e 

aQ 

a 
u 

M 

1 

II 

c 

V 

c 

OQ 
O 

o 

DEVELOPMENT  OF  Ul'PER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  14.') 

Deferred  charges.  As  previously  stated,  a  larjre  part,  if  not  all. 
of  the  main  canal  lining,  and  perhaps  75  per  cent  of  the  i)rojeet 
drainage,  may  be  deferred  until  the  project  settlement  is  well  advanced, 
thus  reducing  tlu'  l)urdou  during  the  early  years  of  development.  The 
possibilities  along  this  line  may  be  summed  up  as  follows: 

Estimated  cost  of  concrete  Unlng  in  main  canal,  Table  28 $7  85."?  .t4.") 

Estimated  cost  of  drainage  system,  Table  28,  $3,945,825,  75%  deferred—  2,959,369 

Total     |10,812,!n4 

Deferred  cost  per  acre  on  263,055  acres 41.11 

Deferred  annual  per  acre  cost I_I-I_ZI I       2^06 

Possible  reduction  in  estimated  cost  of  pumping.  As  indicated 
in  Preliminary  Estimate  Xo.  13,  the  cost  of  i)ower  at  $0.01  i)er  k.w.h. 
represents  about  75  per  cent  of  the  estimated  cost  of  operating  the 
pumps  serving  the  pumping  areas.  If,  in  the  disposal  of  power  gener- 
ated at  the  two  proposed  project  plants,  provision  is  made  for  reserving 
from  sale  the  (piantity  required  for  project  i)umi)ing,  it  is  believefl 
that  the  pumping  units  should  be  charged  for  power  at  the  rate  at  which 
it  is  sold  to  the  distributing  company.  Assuming  this  rate  to  be  4  mills 
per  k.w.h.,  and  assuming  a  transformer  and  distribution  loss  of  20  per 
cent,  the  cost  of  power  at  the  pumping  plants  would  be  5  mills  per 
k.w.h.  Upon  this  basis  the  annual  charge  on  the  jjumping  areas  shown 
in  Table  30  would  be  reduced  to  the  amounts  shown  beloAv. 


Pump  unit 

.\nnual  cost  per  acre 

Pumring 
charge 

Gross 

Net* 

Ked  Bank  pump  unit 

?2.48 
1.97 
1.99 

S8.66 

10.2fi 

fl.58 

$7  72 

Pump  units  near  Orland 

9  32 

Pump  units  south  of  Willows 

8  6t 

*Net  cost  =?ross,  le.ss  power  credit  at  4  mills  shown  in  Taljlo  30.  No  account  taken  of  possil.Ie  deferred  charges 
from  main  canal  lining  or  project  drainage  system. 

Financing  the  project  construction  cost.  Up  to  this  point  all 
discussions  of  cost  have  been  based  upon  the  assumption  that  the  entire 
project  would  be  constructed  with  government  funds  upon  which  no 
interest  would  be  charged,  and  that  repayment  of  construction  costs 
would  be  made  in  20  equal  annual  installments.  To  make  the  project 
feasible,  it  may  be  necessary  to  reduce  the  amount  of  money  assumed 
to  be  furnished  by  the  government. 

The  project  may  be  divided  into  two  distinctly  separate  units : 

(a)  Storage  and  power  features. 

(b)  Canal  and  distribution  system. 

The  estimated  cost  may  be  divided  as  follows : 

Total  estimated  cost,  Table  28 J56,140,317 

Iron  Canyon  reservoir  and  power  plant,  item  1,  Table  28 $24,772,500 

Total    cost    chargeable    to    power    development    at    Mooney 

I.sland  plant.  Statement  B 1,591,310 

Total  storage  and  power  features 26,363,810 

Total  canal  and  distribution  system__ • $29,776,507 

(a)  Storage  and  power  features.  Table  31  contains  a  detail 
analysis  of  the  amorti/atiitn  of  costs  of  the  storage  and  power  features 

10— 506G7 


140  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

upon  the  assumptions  that  eoiistruetion  Avouhl  cover  a  period  of  five 
years ;  that  money  Mould  bo  avaihible  at  5  ])er  cent  interest,  compounded 
semi-aninially ;  and  that  tlic  net  revenue  derived  from  the  sale  of  power 
at  4  mills  per  k.w.li.  would  be  ai)plie(l  in  the  repayment  of  construction 
costs. 

Total   estinialt-a  roiiytnictioii    cost $26,363,810 

Yearly  estiiiiatetl  coiistiuctiou  cost 5,272,800 

Annual   oiieration    and   maintenance — 

Iron  Canyon  plant,  Kstimate  No.   3 $56,730 

Mooney  Island  plant,  Estimate  No.  9 12,650 

Total  annual  operation  and  maintenance 69,380 

Annual    depreciation — 

*Iron  Canyon  plant.  Estimate  No.  3 $208,660 

Mooney  Island  plant,  Estimate  No.  9 $33,600 

♦♦Diversion  works,  Estimate  No.  5 900 

Total  Mooney  Island  and  diversion  works $34,500 

Total  annual  depreciation 243,160 

The  table  indicates  that  in  the  53d  year  after  beginning  of  construc- 
tion, the  last  of  the  constrnetion  bonds  would  be  retired  and  the  accumu- 
lation of  a  large  surplus  would  begin. 

EXPLANATION    OF    TABLE     No.    31    AND    ASSUMPTIONS    USED    IN     ITS 

PREPARATION. 

Column  1.  The  years  shown  in  tliis  column  are  based  on  the  assumption  that 
construction  would  begin  at  the  first  of  the  year  192  8  and  would  be  completed  at 
the  end  of  1932.  The  operations  shown  on  the  line  with  any  year  represent  the 
accumulations  or  rates  of  operations,  during  that  year,  or  the  total  accumulations 
to  the  end  of  that  year,  as  the  case  may  be,  with  the  exception  of  entries  under 
column  2.     The  entries  in  column  2  are  for  the  beginning  of  the  year. 

Column  2.  Construction  starts  at  the  beginning  of  1928  and  extends  through 
five  years  with  five  equal  construction  cost  installments  of  $5,272,800,  the  amount 
borrowed  at  the  beginning  of  each  year  for  this  purpose.  With  interest  payable 
semi-annually  at  5  per  cent,  it  is  necessary  during  the  earlier  years  to  borrow  a  sum 
in  excess  of  construction  funds  sufficient  to  pay  the  second  installment  of  interest 
for  the  previous  year  and  also  the  installment  that  will  be  due  July  1  next,  after 
allowance  is  made  for  net  income  from  plant  operation.  To  illustrate,  at  the 
beginning  of   1932,   the  indebtedness  is   found  thus: 

Previous  indebtedness $22,734,000 

Annual   construction   fund 5,272,800 

Deficit  at  end  of   1931 452,315 


Necessary  indebtedness  at  beginning  of  1932rr:Pr=: $28,459,115 

Interest  on  P  for  first  six  months  of  1932  =  .025P  = $711,478 

Operating  revenue   for   six   months $475,248 

Operation   and    maintenance 34,690 


Net  operating  revenue 440,558 


Interest  that  must  be  borrowed $270,920 

Capitalized  amount  of  interest  to  be  borrowed=r270,920-^.975= 277,867 

Total   indebtedness   to  be  provided   for $28,736,982 

Used 28,737.000 

After  193  4,  when  income  begins  to  exceed  expenses,  it  is  assumed  that  the  collec- 
tions can  be  handled  so  as  to  meet  interest  charges  whenever  they  fall  due.  Also  that 
repayment  of  bonds  will  be  made  at  the  beginning  of  each  year  and  that  the 
smallest  denomination  of  the  bonds  is  $500.  For  these  reasons  it  is  not  necessary 
to   show  a  financial   statement  every  six   months. 

Columns  3  and  4.  It  is  assumed  that  the  diversion  dam,  Mooney  Island  power 
plant,  and  the  main  canal  to  that  point  will  be  built  during  the  first  year  and  that 
the  plant  with  its  installed  capacity  of  10,400  h.p.  (7760  k.w\)  will  be  placed  in 
operation  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  year,  1929,  with  a  sale  of  90  per  cent  of 
its  capacity.  By  the  end  of  the  fourth  year  construction  is  advanced  to  the  point 
where  the  average  output  fo*-  the  fifth  year  at  the  Iron  Canyon  plant  is  30,000  h.p. 
(22,380    k.w.)    and    that    90    per    cent    is    sold.      During    the   construction    period    the 

♦  Includes  depreciation  on  items  chargeable  to  power  only.  No  depreciation 
allowed    on    concrete,    except    in    superstructures    of    power    plants. 

♦♦  Includes  depreciation  on  the  five  additional  head  gates  at  the  diversion  dam 
required   for   diversion   of   power   water. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  147 

development  of  the  use  of  iriigatiuii  water  on  the  project  would  not  be  far 
advanced,  so  that  most  of  the  water  in  the  river  would  be  available  for  developing 
power  at  Mooney  Island  at  all  times,  up  to  the  capacity  of  the  plant.  During  11)33. 
the  first  year  after  the  completion  of  the  plant,  it  is  assumed  that  90  per  cent  of 
the  primary  output  is  sold,  and  that  bog-inning  with  l'J34  the  delivery  reaches  it.s 
maximum  of  !*0  per  cent  of  the  primary  <nit)>iit  and  .").">  per  cent  of  the  secondary. 
.^■■e   I'lati-   lu. 

Column    .").      Self-explanatorj'. 

Column  6.  See  preliminary  estimates  Nos.  :!  and  li  for  details.  Charges  are 
entered  for  every  six  months  till  end  of  year  1934,  and  thereafter  for  each  year.  Up 
to  the  end  of  1031,  charges  are  made  for  Mooney  Island  plant  only,  because  the 
Iron   Canyon    plant    is    not   operated    till    the    beginning   of    1932. 

Column  7.  See  preliminary  estimates  Nos.  3  and  9  for  details.  In  order  that 
repayment  of  bonds  may  begin  as  soon  as  possiljle  no  allowance  for  depreciation 
is  made  during  the  first  five  years  of  operation.  Also  construction  is  still  in  progress 
during  this  time,  and  the  machinery  is  new  so  that  replacements  are  unlikely.  How- 
ever, in  order  that  the  funds  may  be  available  when  needed,  the  annual  amount 
set  aside  for  replacement  is  increased  during  the  years  1934  to  1947  inclusive 
so  that  by  the  end  of  1947  the  amount  set  aside  is  the  same  as  it  would  have  been 
if  depreciation  liad  been  allowed  as  soon  as  equipment  had  gone  into  service.  No 
interest  is  credited  to  this  fund,  althougli  it  is  prolialile  that  in  actual  operation, 
enough  of  this  fund  would  be  on  deposit  to  provide  an  income  from  interest 
payments. 

Column   8.      Interest   at    ,')    per   cent   semi-annually. 

Column   9.      Sum  of  columns  G,   7,   8. 

Column   10.     Column  5  minus  column  9. 

Column  11.  Amount  applied  from  net  earnings  each  year  to  the  repayment  of 
the   bonds. 

Column  12.     Small  working  fund  equal  to  column  10  minus  column  11. 


148 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


H 

z 

o 


Q 

a: 

m 

o 

H 
U 

u 


u 

z 

o 
a; 

Q 
u 

O 

o 

Pu 
o 

z 

o 


u 

o 

O 


O 

-J 


u 


Wi 

a 


(A 

CO  ' 


O  2  > 

CU    re    O 

O      iS      « 
^      -     ^ 

ki   o 
(U    00 

Sk 

C  in 
^    1- 

c 

a 

<u 

C 
O 


cs) 

3 
C 
C 
« 


CS 


73     ifl 
73     C8 


(U 


c 
£ 
^   k   o 


ts 

u 

o 

u 

o 

& 

a 

lO 

>. 

4J 

CS 

C8 

-n 

T3 

r: 

<u 

0 
o 

£ 

3 

(0 

> 


"O  o 


a  -c 

IT)   13 

"^  C 

73  •-* 

C  C 

C8  O 


(0 


u    o 

a  i-H 


o 


C 


(N 

1. 

If 

■< 

'     '     •     '     • '     '     '  --C  CS  00  -^  o  •£  n  re  '^  =:  -^  CI  oo  C:  »rt  —  I* 

'     •     • i^i-'icjioe^o^rcoo-.coo— cooo^--^-# 
•     J     1     •     •     t     •     1     t     .     1     .     '  ec  h- tc_t^  o^t^  o  f— »!^  r'- ro  ic  u^  CO  ci  «-<  ^- 

1    1     1    1    1    !    1    )'    1    1     1    !     |ci*ecr--'t--'oo'oo"c^"c^'r;'^'o'c;'o*o"o"  •-*•--' 

.      .      .      ,      .      1      .      .      ,      ,      ,      .      ,«#  —  —  —  ^  —  —«  —  —  —  C-l  Cl  Cl  Cl  Cl  Cl  -M 

- 

■    '    • Ill    looo  oo  o  o  oo  oooooooo 

1.11      .00000  0  0  00  =  0000000 

<    •    'Oooc:oo»coicc;oowtioooo 

I     1     1    J     I     1     lo  o  »c  u'T'^  •c'*'^  iVqc --'-r'ac'ci't^oo*— *»rr 

,     ,           ,     ,     ,       «oi^ao  -  O  "C-i  re -^  -r  r-oc  o  —  »ct^  o 

, ,  —  —  —  "  n  -M  n  CI  n  r»  CI  CI  re  ro  cc  cc  « 

O 

o  s- 

'O       'OO       'CO       '»0       it^       tCCOOOOCDOOOOO^^OOOtO  —  05DCO 

"  =D     '  C)     1  «o     1  -^     1  MS     ■  lO  OO  OO  i^  t--  CI  r^  1  ^  CI  c:  ic  t^  CI  c)  CI  ic  OD  QO  or) 

>0\      t  CO      '  «3      'CO      1  OO^     "^  CD_  0_  CO  OO  ^_^  00  0__  oq  —  IT:  co^  -^  ^  »c  o  c<  —  o 
|»0       loo       1-^*      Icsf      ;t>-'      I  0*-'^'-t"'l>riO  40''^'»c'«7l^*00'^''*'oo'cYt^'oo'tO  TJ"' 

,co     ,»c     ,o       W3     ,1^     .looooot^oooo  —  cico-^cor^ooo  —  icr^o 

,rj?       I"-*       iCO       ,-*!<       ,0       ,                        ^^^^C»CJC»C»ClCiC»CJCCCOCOCOCO 

13  13  13  13  13  13 

a> 

C'O0000r0C0i0»C»r5»CC0r0OOOOOOOO»C»COOOO4COOO 

CDOoooo-^— 'I'-i^'— t  —  i.oicooooicooicr^ciOtr;io»jrrc4cr.  oos 
CI  c^_o  o  o  o_cD  o  -- «  u::  ijt;_o_o_o  lO  CI  »o^                -^  o_ ^  ci  oo  r^  O  ^  eo 
ic  lo"  o""  o'  -r  -^'  -^'  -^'  CO  co'  — *  — ''  r-'  t— '  o'  r>-'  oo'  oo  oo'  i^'  o'  -r  ca'  oo'  »o  o'  »c  »c  r-'  oo* 

CO  CO  00  OO  Cl  Cl  r^  I  -  to  lO  O  --C  ~  r-.  00  1-^  o  to  -*■  CO  CI  —  O  OC  I  -  to  -f  O  00  ■X' 
'—  -H  d  CI  -f  -f  i-O  »C  l^  1^  I--.  I-  oo  00  *"~,^\'^.t"-.*--,'''_^-,»^,i-,— .*-s,^,*-c,^.»'3»c_ 

00 
CD 

CD 

a 
S 

1—4 

CO 

OOC0C00000OO»0»0C0C0OOCOO  =  OO»C»0OOOOi0OOO 
OOOOOOOOiC»OClC10-sO»OiCOOiCOOiCI^CIO»C*Cif5C|iC»C»0 

ci^  o_  co^  co_  'to  -o  CO  C3^  Tf^  '^_  oo_  oo_  co_^  co_  o-_  ci_  cri_  ci^  o^  cj  c»  — _  I--  o^  cr^  io_  -^^  »j^_  co  oo 

lO*  » ra" -r' '^' 1  -  t--*  00*  oo' oo' oo' O' O' oo' oo' QO' O' O' ^' ^' O*  OC' iV  ■*' ^*  l>r  CO*  00*  CI  '^^ 
COCOI-.t-^--^:0;0^— •(MCI01Cl'^'<rCOCI^OOOI^O»CCOC10~-r-40 

«— ^cici-rj«-»r»dOh-t^t^i->'i^t^-^'*'^'*'^-*'Cororocococococicici 

C 

S- 

II 

.2 
.3 

3 

>    •    •    I    i    1    !    !    1    !    1    loo  o  o  o  oo  o  o  o  o  oo  ooo  oo 

t CO  O  CI  CI  CI  CI  CI  C»  CI  CJ  CI  CI  CI  CI  CI  O  CO  CO 

I     I     I     I     I     I     I     I     I     1     I     !co'co'r--'t- i-'i- i-'i-'f- 1- i-'i-'t-'r-'t^'co'co'co' 

,                                                I       CO  CO  tc  -j:  -JD  -j::  -^  --^  --::  %z;  -^  -o  --o  o  •x>  «  '^  -^ 

,       ,       ,       ,       ,       ,       ,       ,       ,       I      ;       ,  -H  r-^  d  CI  CI  CI  CI  C*  CI  Ci  CI  CI  CI  C^  CI  CS  CI  CI 

.2 

si 

o 

c 

oooio»oioio>oooooooo:roo  =  ooc:o:roooooo 
cicidCicici— .  — .  —  r-.  zr;  —  ococooocococooococococooacoooooo 
co^coco^cocc  CO  •— -^-o --c:  --o  o_co  ro  CO  re  re  cere  rece  re  re  co  co  ro_co^co_ 
CO*  co"  co"  co"  co'  ;o'  -r'  -r  -t*'  -f  '  -*  -r  c^'  cr^  n'  c:;'  erf  o'  c^'  ^'  n'  o'  o'  o*  n'  o'  o'  o' 

^  a^                              CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  -J=  O  O  --C  CO  O  -^  --O  O  O  CO  Xi  CO  o  o 

m 

^1 

O  O  O  O  O  -^  O  O  00  oo  O  O  00  OC  CO  CO  CO  CO  O  CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  -^  CO  CO  CO  CO 

cocoyr«ococO'r-*oooooct^i-~r^t-t^t^t^t'-t^t^r^t^t^r^t^r- 

co_co_ce  cocococici^'-'cocococo^co  co_co_^co_co_co_ce_co_co_^co_co_co_co  co 

Cl'  cT  Cl'  Cl'  Cl'  Cl"  iti  iO  Cl'  Cl'  — *  «'  co'  co'  co'  co'  co'  CC"  co'  CO*  co'  co'  CO*  CO*  co'  CO*  CO*  CO* 

dCICICICICir-t^OOQOOOOCOcOCOCOCOCDCOCOcOcOCOCOCOCDCO 

^ 

Energy 
delivered, 
k.  w.  hrs. 

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 
o  o  o  o  o  o  o_o_o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o^o__o_o_^o_o_o_o_o_o_o_^o^ 
o*  o'  o"  o* o  o* cT  cd'  ic*  lo"  ci' cf  ■»*•'  -^* -rt*'  '-s'* ■^* ''*•*  f  '  -f'  -r  ■^*  "^'  ■** ■^*  '^' '*" '** 

OC;C3C:OCr2'-H-HdClCICI"rfi-^"rt''r1<'^-t''»r'?''^-?"-*'^'*''ft''^'»' 
»OiO  »0_iC  kTS  iC  OO  00  iCi-O  -«**__'^^oq  O0_O0_O0__O0__OC  O0_^  00_^CC  OO^OO^OC  OO^OC  oo_oo_ 

o'  o'  o'  o'  o  o*  oo'  oo'  *o'  ^'  «5*  *o*  o'  o'  o'  o'  o*  o"  o'  o*  o'  o'  o*  o'  O*  O*  O*  o* 

COCQCOCOCOCO'^'— 't^t^-f'^^-Cr^OOCSOJOOOOOOOiOSOiO 
^  ^  ^  ^  ^  d  d  Tf -^  -rj-  ^  ^  rJH  TJ.  -^  'tf'  ^  ^  ^  ^  ■«»"<*•  ^ 

CO 

Installed 

capacity  at 

beginning  of 

year,  h.p. 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCDOOOOOOOOOO 

o'  o'  o'  o"  o'  o'  o*  o'  o'  o*  o*  o'  o'  o'  o*  o'  o'  o'  o'  o*  o*  o'  o'  o*  o*  o*  o'  o' 
w--.^^,-.T-.-«r'^ddCidddddddddddddddCid 

CM 

Indebtedness 

at  beginning 

of  year 

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 

oooooooooooooocr  =  OCr  C^OOOOOOOOOOO 
0__0^»C  »0  40  UO  0__C:  C:_0_t.0  iCOC^C:  —   ~~~  0_»C_»0_0__0^0_^0_»C_0_0^0_ 

oo  OD*  'rr  ■^'  t^'  r^'  Tf'  -T  i^'  t^'  -f '  -r'  -r  -r'  -f'  -r  — '  -r'  3  ir:  — '  ci"  V  co*  o"  — ■'  oo'  -^'  co'  r--* 
oot^r-oococecoroi-r-recet-o  —  cicioi^fcr.  co»ct^cou^o  — 
"rf-^j-oot^t^^-i^t't^oo^'—cr.  occO'^cio  f^,"5.<^_o '->.^**,^,oo -^^^^^ 
lo'io  o*  o' co' co' d~  d' 00*  oo' cs' o*  o*  ctToo'oo'oc' 00*  <»*oo' ^*' t^'r--'r^*  CO*  co' CO*  wr"»o  1(5 
4^      ^^^^iddc^ddcic^ddcicicidddcicidcidddcici 

- 

CS 

ooooociOO'-'i-'CflcicocoTj<-*j<iccot'-oooo^Hdco'*«3cor^ooosO 

dddClC0C0COC0C0C0C0C0COC0C0COCOCOCO-^'^J-'*'^'^'^'^"<t"*'<!r»O 

OiOiOOsOiCJOSOiOOOSCTOOOOCiOOOOCSC^OCsOOOCiO 

DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


149 


^  «  —  ^  —*  c^i'  c^i  <m'  w'  ci  c{  rY  ^  — *  — '  — '  oi  ci'  <?»'  c^'  m  m'  m  c^i  c^»  cY  w*  cm  ■^' 
ci^ic-iTic»CNjMC-jeMC^c^c^c^c**cMCMC^c<»c^ciCMe^c4c^cMoic»icM^ 


ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 

cooooooo^oooooooooooooooooooo 

-r»c  t-'c^'  ^  C-'  If:  cri  c^i  re  l.*;'  r-'4c' ci'— csTic  O  cc  oc  o'»c  rc'ce  i^'— *  -*■  oo'-*' 
•^  Tp  ■^  TT  »c  'C  »-':  ic  —  —  -^  t^  r--  t^  GO  oc  C".  ~  C".  o  --  —  c-i  CI  r^  -r-  -r  »c  «/5 


rc:croQOOPooro  —  co^-ootLOccoooorocccc  —  —  —  —  ocrc^-ccoo^-— ' 
t^  -*  C-)  o  cr  c^J  r-  ».«  :c  cc  -^  (N  t—  — ._  0_  —  (m  -?•  c:_  ^  ce  re  O  t-  -^  cm  rj<  c»  o 
-r  ^'  I-  c:*  *r  c:*  »^'  re  M  re  ii^"  rrT  -^' '—'  ^  CM  ic  o'  oo'  r--'  c'  ic  ee  ee'  t-'  -r  ^  oc  lO 

—  cei-eoc  —  c^jicoo  —  -rr-c-^oocM^LCOiccr.  Tj-om^-r- ceor^T)«cM 


tC  CO 
O  CO 
oo'crT 
I-  o 

OCM 

u 


OiCOOOOOif50»COiOOOOOOOiC»Ci^iCOO»COCueiO 
-t-  ^-  -tt"  c;  Ci  C"-  rp  !:£  cr.  —  c-  «—•  -^  w:  Ci  -r  ■rr  -.  i:^  cc  tc  cc  c;  -^  c:  cr.  (T-  :c  <:c 
CO  CT  —  c^  c^i  c;  :c  00  w  o^  c»  ^  CO  ce__  cm  c-i  — _  gc_  ce_  -rf  o_  o  c^j  ':o  cr.  o  oo  ^-  t— 

oc'r^'co'ce'ci''^  ^-'crTc'crr^'-^'oo'  -h'cm  .— '  or' ci  »c' »o  ce  cc  o  zr'  iti  cr'  ao  ^  t-^ 
-rr-cit^ocicreoi—  icc-ioo»o  —  oot:0»C'—  ■-c^-cooicocc^)icoo«— CO 
»cut»n-^'^-r'^cerccecicMC-i'— "— ■^-cro~cr-ocoot~-coccw5Tt'--^co 


OiOOOiOOO»COW^OiOOOOOOOiCiCu^400C^ueOOu^m 
Or-0»C»0»COCM»CC^4»Ot—  0*OlOOC!iOCMCMCM'M»COCMlOiCCMC^J 

•-  ce_  ^_  t^  r- US  —  cc  ^  lO  co  uo  »-'  oc  t-  r^  cd  ce  oo_  c^_^  ic  »o  i"-  —'■-*■  »c  ce  ;£>  oi 
CO  lO  re'  cT  — '  — '  ic*  1^*  oo'  r-.  »c  — '  cc'  oo'  c-.*  oo  ue  o  c^i'  c-i'  o  i-e  t^'  t^'  ce'  co  cc  c  i  lo" 
re  —  c--r-'rrjcr--orecri--'^occc^oo-^OueCiOc.  cei>-^-'^i-oc<i 
cMc^i  —  —  —  —  oo  —  o~,  —  c:ococr'-t-t^  —  coue'^'j'cecTci^-i-. 


ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 
co--ooooo:ooocoo;ococDcccocotoco-,ococoococococococo 

cecererecerecererere  re'  ce  re  ce  ce'  co  ce  re'  ce  ce  re'  re'  ce'  re'  re"  ce'  ce'  re'  ceT 

.^    -M.    M.     -^    ^^    .t4-    — "    ■^     -*.    -^     vfa    s^    ^    «^    Tt<    ■»*•    -7'    -^    -^    ■^     »^    -WTf.    — »■     T*"     1-*«    ^^     »*    T^    ^ 

CM  CM  e-J  C^l  C^l  C'l  CM  C^l  C-l  CI  C^l  ^1  CM  C  I  CM  CM  C-1  CM  CI  CI  CM  T-i  CI  CJ  CI  CI  CI  CJ  CM 


OOOCiOOOOOiOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 

-oooooDocooooooooococooooorjoooooocoooooooooooocoooooooooooo 
cecececerererere^^rereref~re^erecocococococeceeecceocecoco 


CO  ^O  O  O  O'  O  O  'O  --O  O  CO  O  CO  CO  CO  CD  O'  CO  "^  CO  CO  O  O  CO  CO  O  CO  CD  CO 

r--  I-  t^  t-  t-  t-  t—  I-  t-  t- 1^  t--  r>.  t^  t- 1~-  t^  t-  t^  t^  r--  t-  t-  t^  i-.  i^  t-  t^  t-, 

rereccrererererecererorececererecerecececccererececeeecece 
re  ce'  re  re*  re'  re'  ^  ^  ^^2  ^  re'.re*  ce'  ce'  cd  ce  re'  re  ce'  ce'  ce*  ce'  re'  re"  re'  ce'  re*  ce*  ro' 


o_o_o_o_o_o_o^o_o_o^o_o  o_o_o  o_o_o_o_o_o_o  o  o  o  o_o  o_o 

•+  T  -^  -^  -*•  -*  -^^  -^"  -r  -T*  -J''  r?"  tT"'  Tf*  T^'  -rj-'  Tf*  -rt-'  -rf "  »J-'  ■r*-"  -r*  •^'  -f '  -r-  f*  -r  •fl'*  TjT 

QC  oq^  oc_  CO  OC  OC  OC  oc_  00  00  oo__oc  00  00^  OC;  c«c_  cc  oc_  oo  00  cc  oo_^  oc  oo  00  oo  oc  oo  00 
o  o*o'o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o'o'  o"o'o*o'o'o*  o'o'oo'oo  o'  o'o'o'cT 


o  o  o  o  o  o  o  : 
-*•  ^  ?  ^  n-  ^  ^  - 


:000000000000000000000 
O  O  O  O  O  O  O  C)  CM  CI  CI  CI  CI  CI  CI  CI  CI  CI  CM  CI  CI 

^  — ,'+.  ■^_-^.  "^_Tf__-^__oo_oo  oo  oo_oc_oo  oc  oc  oc  oc  00_^OC  00  00_ 
o  o  cr;'  o  o'  o  o'  en  ctT  oT  r:*  c;*  cr'  o  cr'  o:'  c^'  crT  ^'  cr'  oT 

I  CI  CI  ei  M  cj  CI  C)  oc  00  oc  00  oc  OC'  oc  oc  oc  00  oc  oo  00  00 


:0«— CMs»3'*»«c0t^00c:O«-«CMC0TMr?tDt^00C;  < 
scr:cocDcoc05o:DcDcoeDi^t*i-'-i'-i'-i^r-h»h*t^e 

~  ■?-.  c;  =?;  C"  cr.  cv  ^^  tr-.  O  o:  CI  C  c  o:  c;  Ci  o:  C  C-- ; 


150  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

(b)   Canal  and  distribution  system. 

TABLE  32.     ESTIMATED  CONSTRUCTION  AND  OPERATION  COST 
CANAL  AND  DISTRIBUTION  SYSTEM. 

Assumed  to  be  built  with  noninterest  bearing  money. 
Area  Assessed,  95  Per  Cent  of  Gross    263,055  Acres. 


Item 


Total  cost 


Cost  per  acre 


Total 


20  annual 
instuUmciits 


Balance  of  diversion  dam  and  main  canal  to  Mooney  Island  not  charged  to 

power,  from  Statement  A 

Items  a  to  11,  inclusive.  Table  28 


SI. 684.745 
16,170,787 


$i.41 
61.47 


Subtotal,  diversion  dam  and  main  canal. 

Distril)  ition  system,  Table  28 

Drainage  system.  Table  28 

Project  adnrdaistration  b jiUings,  Table  28 . . . 


$17,855,532 

7.8J1,650 

3,945,825 

83,500 


167.88 

30.00 

15.00 

.32 


Total  C3nstr.iction  cost 

Operation  and  maintenance,  canals  and  laterals.  Tabic  28. 
Operation  and  miintenance.  pumping  plants,  Table  28.  .  . 
.\imual  dc,,reciation.  iten.s  17  and  18,  Table  28 


$29,776,507 


$113.20 


Total  estimated  annual  payment . 


$3  39 

1  .50 
.75 
.02 


$5  66 

1  .55 

1  15 

.30 


$8.66 


The  result  should  be  compared  with  Table  29. 

If  tlie  main  canal  linino-  and  construction  of  75  per  cent  of  the  drain- 
age system  are  deferred,  the  orij^inal  cost  would  be  reduced  to  $72.09 
per  acre  and  the  total  annual  charg-e  during  the  first  few  years  would  be 
at  the  rate  of  $6.60  per  acre  assessed. 


SUGGESTED    ALTERNATIVE    PROJECTS. 

Area  and  water  supply.  An  outstanding  fact  Avith  reference 
to  the  Iron  Canyon  project  is  that  the  area  of  land  available  for  irriga- 
tion in  the  Sacramento  Valley,  below  the  site  of  the  proposed  Iron 
Canyon  reservoir,  is  greatly  in  excess  of  the  area  which  can  adetjuately 
be  served  by  that  reservoir.  Of  the  2,700,000  acres  of  irrigable  area 
on  the  floor  of  the  valley  there  are.  according  to  census  figures,  only 
about  800,000  acres  now  irrigated.  Other  storage  reservoirs  on  the 
Sacramento  River  above  Iron  Canyon  are  under  consideration,  par- 
ticularly one  at  Kennett.  Considerations  involved  in  the  Kennett 
reservoir  are  many  and  discussion  of  them  is  outside  the  province  of 
this  report.  Investigation  might  demonstrate  that  the  water  su])])ly 
for  the  Sacramento  Valley  can  be  augmented  1)\'  bringing  in  water 
from  otlier  watersheds.  A  project  contemplating  diversion  of  water 
from  tlie  Trinity  Kiver,  kmnvn  as  the  Sampson-Hill  j)roject,  has  been 
suggested,  but  no  consideration  has  been  given  to  the  propo,sal  in  this 
report. 

Project  in  northern  part  of  valley.  Other  things  being  equal, 
the  ideal  ])roject  is  one  including  a  suitable  area  near  the  source  of 
water  supply  which  can  be  servetl  by  a  relatively  .short  canal.  Appar- 
ently this  ideal  would  be  approached  through  the  inclusion  of  about 
200,000  acres  of  land  on  tlie  west  side,  north  of  the  Glenn-Colusa  county 
line.  7000  {leres  on  the  east  side  opposite  Red  1)1  ufF,  and  a]iproximatel3" 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  151 

64,000  acres  on  the  east  side  of  tlie  valley,  north  oi"  Butte  Ci-eek  and 
lying:  below  the  low  line  canal  surveyed  by  the  State  Department  of 
Engineering:,  shown  on  Plate  2.  If  it  were  desirable  to  include  a 
comiiaratively  lar-ze  area  on  the  cast  side  of  the  valley  the  (U.OOO  acivs 
mentioned  could  replace  the  area  south  of  the  Glenn-Colusa  county  line 
in  the  project  studies,  thus  eliminating:  the  "shoe  strinj;"  area  to  the 
south.  The  ])ower  features  would  be  unchanjjed.  Tiie  larjre  east  side 
area  could  be  served  eithei-  ])y  pumpiii<i'  from  the  river  oi-  by  siphoning 
from  the  west  side  canal. 

Project  in  southern  part  of  valley.  The  other  extreme  would 
be  to  construct  the  project  in  the  vicinity  of  Arbuckle,  Woodland  and 
Dixon,  whej-e  there  is  a  large  area  of  excellent  land.  In  thi.s  scheme 
water  released  from  Iron  Canyon  resei-voir  would  be  carried  in  the 
Sacramento  River  cliannel  to  Knights  Landing,  whence  it  would  be 
lifted  to  canals  extending  north  and  south  from  Knights  Landing 
Ridge.  The  storage  dam  and  power  plant  would  be  the  same  as  pro- 
posed for  the  project  studied.  As  shown  in  Table  18,  the  average 
annual  output  of  the  Iron  Canyon  power  ])lant,  resulting  through 
utilization  of  the  800,000  acre-foot  irrigation  draft  for  power  purposes, 
is  94,313,700  k.w.h.,  assuming  80  ]ier  cent  efficiency  at  the  switch- 
board. Assuming  transmission  line  and  transformer  ei¥iciencies  of  90 
per  cent  and  9n  per  cent  resi)ectively,  the  average  amount  of  power 
delivered  at  Knights  Lauding  i)umping  plant  annually  Avould  be  about 
80,600,000  k.Av.h.,  or  sufficient  to  lift  the  800,000  acre-feet  through  an 
average  static  head  of  62  feet,  as.suming  70  per  cent  pump  efficiency 
and  10  ]ier  cent  average  loss  of  head  in  overcoming  friction  in  the  lujie 
line.  A  large  part  of  the  area  west  of  the  Yolo  basin,  between  Arbuckle 
and  Vacaville,  not  now  served  b}"  an  irrigation  system,  lies  between 
the  25-foot  and  100-foot  contours.  Tt  appears  that  the  area  could  be 
served  by  pumping  from  the  river  at  Knights  Lauding  with  an  average 
lift  of  not  more  than  55  or  60  feet.  The  loss  of  water  in  transporta- 
tion in  the  river  channel  from  Iron  Canyon  reservoir  to  Knights  Land- 
ing should  be  negligible  in  comparison  with  the  loss  in  an  artificial 
canal  of  equal  length. 

As  an  alternative  for  pumping  at  Knights  Landing,  the  same  area 
might  be  served  by  gravity  through  a  canal  diverting  at  Red  Bank 
Creek.  It  was  with  this  in  view  that  the  perliminary  location  survey 
was  extended  to  Putali  Creek.  It  is  probable  that  adopticm  of  the  line 
on  the  valley  floor  south  of  Dunnigan  (the  "Bird  Creek  low  line"  on 
Plates  2  and  24)  would  be  preferable  to  building  the  canal  through  tlie 
hills,  as  the  latter  would  require  heavy  construction,  long  flumes,  etc. 
If  this  were  true  it  would  be  necessary  to  regain  the  head  lost  at  the 
drop  by  pumping  up  to  Knights  Landing  Ridge  at  Cache  Creek.  At 
least  a  portion  of  the  power  required  foi-  this  pumping  could  be 
develojied  at  di'ops  on  the  main  canal. 

Individual  pumping  plants  along  river,  it  might  be  found 
feasible,  and  desirable,  to  supi)ly  with  water  from  Iron  Canyon  reser- 
voir areas  along  the  river  for  which  i)nmi)s,  in  many  cases,  are  now 
installed,  but  for  which  the  water  sui)i)ly  from  natural  flow  is  usually 
deficient. 

Irrigation  from  Coast  Range  streams.  An  investigation  covering 
the  complete  use  of  water  entei-ing  the  Sacramento  Valley  from  the 


152  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

Coast  Range,  in  irrigation  of  areas  on  the  west  side  of  the  valley,  might 
sliow  this  plan  to  be  feasible.  There  are  possibilities  at  Red  Bank, 
p]l(ler,  Thomes,  Caclie,  Putah  and  perhaps  other  smaller  creeks. 

Combining-  with  Glenn-Colusa  Trrig-ation  District.  Several  com- 
biiialions  with  tlie  Glenn-Colusa  Irrigation  District  have  been  sug- 
gested, among  them  the  following: 

(1)  Eliminate  first  forty  miles  of  the  main  canal  estimated  in  this 
report  and  i)ump  water  from  the  river  to  the  canal  at  Stony  Creek, 
combining  with  the  district  at  tlicir  ])umping  plant. 

(2)  Build  a  diversion  dam  at  the  head  of  the  Glenn-Colusa  canal, 
eliminate  jjumping  to  that  canal  and  pumj)  tlirough  the  reduced  head 
to  the  Iron  Canyon  canal. 

(;})  Eliminate  pumping  plant  at  head  of  Glenn-Colusa  canal. 
Enlarge  the  upper  portion  of  the  Iron  Canyon  canal  and  deliver  Glenn- 
Colusa  water  to  their  canal  below  Stony  Creek,  possibly  making  use  of 
tlie  drop  to  generate  electrical  energy. 

(4)  Eliminate  Iron  Canyon  main  canal,  build  diversion  dam  at  head 
of  Glenn-Colusa  canal,  enlarge  that  canal  and  pump  to  areas  lying 
above  it. 

(5)  To  serve  areas  south  of  the  Glenn-Colusa  project  enlarge  the 
Glenn-Colusa  canal  between  the  Glenn-(-olusa  county  line  and  Cortina 
Creek  to  carry  water  received  from  the  Iron  Canyon  canal ;  extend  the 
enlarged  canal  to  Knights  Landing  Ridge,  approximately  on  the  line  of 
Bird  Creek  low  line  canal  shown  on  Plate  2;  and  pump  up  "The 
Ridge,"  as  described  jn'rviously.  The  dro])  from  the  Iron  Canyon 
canal  to  the  Glenn-Colusa  canal  could  be  used  to  develop  a  part,  if  not 
all,  of  the  }K)wer  required  for  pum])ing  at  Knights  Landing  Ridge. 
The  plan  would  eliminate  approximately^  35  miles  of  the  "shoestring" 
area  west  of  the  (rlenn-Colusa  District. 

Additional  studies  required.  A  detail  study  will  be  required 
to  determine  whether  any  of  the  alternative  ])rojects  have  merit.  Some 
of  them  possibly  could  be  eliminated  as  not  fitting  into  the  ultimate 
plan  of  irrigation  development  of  the  Great  Central  Valley,  but  in 
any  event,  careful  consideration  should  be  given  to  various  plans  in 
selecting  the  area,  or  areas,  to  be  watered  from  Iron  Canyon  reservoir. 
Those  responsible  in  the  preparation  of  this  report  believe  that  a 
further  study  may  indicate  that  a  plan  of  development  other  than  that 
selected  for  study  will  be  more  desirable  and  more  economical.  It  is 
believed  that  the  plan  proposed  for  irrigating  a  large  area  in  the 
southern  part  of  the  Sacramento  Valley  by  pumping  from  the  river 
at  Knights  Landing  will  prove  quite  attractive.  It  is  jiossible  that 
200,000  acres  in  this  vicinity  might  be  included  in  a  project  in  combi- 
nation with  about  75.000  acres  in  the  northern  end  of  the  valley,  sup- 
l>Iied  eithei-  by  gravity  or  by  ])umping. 


I 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  153 

EXHIBIT   1. 

November  4,  lJt22. 
Hon.  A.   P.  Davis. 

Director,   U.   S.   Reclamation   Service, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

Dear  Sir  : 

Referring  to  recent  conversation  relative  t<>  contemplated  change  of  plan  for  the 
proposed  Iron  Canyon  Project,  whicii  was  outlined  to  you  verbally  during  your 
recent  visit  on  the  ground.  I  submit  the  following : 

Request  is  hereby  made  for  a  now  survey  covering  a  proposed  change  of  canal 
system  or  systems,  together  with  additional  studies  of  other  details  of  the  project, 
some  of  which   will  be   indicated   herein. 

The  Sacramento  Valley  Development  Association  and  the  Iron  Canyon  Project 
Association  are  deeply  appreciative  of  the  interest  shown  in  this  great  project 
by  the  U.  S.  Reclamation  Service  and  particularly  of  the  surveys  and  investigations 
made  by  the  service  by  means  of  which  the  feasibility  and  di'sirability  i)f  the  project 
have  been  established.  Each  of  the  reports  heretofore  made  has  indicated  a  wide 
variety  of  plans  for  distribution  of  the  waters  of  the  project ;  of  these  only  one 
plan  has  been  definitely  surveyed  and  reported  upon.  After  very  mature  delibera- 
tion we  now  ask  that  additional  surveys  and  studies  be  made  with  a  view  to 
developing  a  more  economical  plan  of  distribution,  also  that  other  features  of  the 
plan  heretofore  considered  be  reviewed  with  a  view  to  the  adoption  of  the  most 
desirable  plan  which  can  be  devised  for  the  development  of  the  project. 

As  you  are  aware,  the  plan  proposed  in  the  reports  above  referred  to  involves 
the  construction  of  a  high  line  canal  of  expensive  construction  and  with  the  added 
disadvantage  that  waters  diverted  through  it  for  irrigation  can  not  be  used  for  the 
generation  of  power.  Owing  chiefly  to  these  two  factors  the  cost  of  supplying  water 
to  land  through  this  high  line  canal  is  relatively  high,  and  in  consequence  vigorous 
oppositon  has  been  voiced  by  the  owners  of  land  comprising  a  very  large  portion 
of  the  area  which  woidd  be  benefited  by  the  adoption  of  the  high  line  as  against 
a  low  line  canal  location. 

It  appears  from  an  examination  of  all  the  facts  available  to  us  that  a  low  line 
canal  diverting  from  the  Sacramento  River  at  a  point  somewhere  below  the  dam 
may  prove  more  economical  for  two  principal  reasons : 

1.  Construction   costs  will  be   materially   less. 

2.  The  waters  to  be  diverted  for  irrigation  would  be  first  used  for  power,  the 
value  of  the  power  plant  thereby  materially  increased  and  the  cost  of  water  storage 
for  irrigation   materially   decreased. 

We  ask  for  a  survey  based  upon  such  a  change  of  plan  of  distribution  and 
including   the   following : 

A  survey  of  a  canal  line  of  the  highest  practicable  level  consistent  with  economy 
and  with  full  operation  of  the  power  plant,  probably  heading  at  or  near  the  mouth 
of  Red  Bank  Creek,  a  short  distance  below  Red  Bluff,  and  extending  as  far 
southerly  on  the  west  side  of  the  Sacramento  River  as  may  be  deemed  advisable. 

We  ask  that  this  canal  line  be  definitely  located,  material  tests  made  and  costs 
carefully   estimated. 

We  ask  that  surveys  be  made  of  secondary  canal  system  or  systems  to  cover 
lands  in  Tehama  County  lying  above  the  low  line  canal.  In  this  connection  we 
have  in  mind  a  study  of  alternative  plans,  including  a  small  canal  to  follow  approxi- 
mately the  route  of  the  high  line  canal  proposed  in  the  1920  report,  and  a  canal  or 
canals  heading  south  of  Red  Rank  Creek  and  supplied  by  pumping  from  the  pro- 
posed low  line  canal. 

Since  completion  of  the  survey  and  report  above  referred  to,  a  survey  has  been 
made  by  the  State  Department  of  Engineering  of  an  east  side  canal  to  be  supplied 
by  pumping  from  the  Sacramentfi  River  at  ii  point  one  mile  below  Tehama  and 
conveying  same  to  land  about  Chico  and  Durham.  It  occurs  to  us  that  in  case  a 
diversion  is  made  on  the  west  side  at  or  near  Red  Bank  Creek,  as  proposed,  the 
advisability  of  extending  the  east  side  canal  up  stream  to  this  point  should  be  con- 
sidered and  wo  ask  that  fiiis  be  done. 

We  ask  that  the  power  feature  of  the  project  be  reconsidered  in  tlie  light  of  the 
proposed  change,  new  plans  and  estimates  made  for  such  changes  as  may  be 
advisable,   including  the  installation  of  additional   power  units,   also  that  the  addi- 


154  WATER  RESOURCES  OP  CALIFORNIA. 

tionul  investment  in  powor  and  i)rospective  returns  therefrom  be  carefully  con- 
sidered and   reported  on. 

In  connertion  with  such  restudy  and  revaluation  of  the  power  plant,  we  ask 
that  consideration  be  given  to  the  fact  that  additional  storage,  which  will  no 
doubt  in  time  be  developed  in  the  watershed  above  Iron  Canyon  for  distribution  in 
the  .Sacramento  Valley,  will  automatically  increase  the  quantity  of  water  available  for 
power  in  summer  and  add   to  the  value  of  the  power  plant. 

It  has  been  suggested  to  us  by  engineers  of  high  standing  in  this  state  that  the 
available  capacity  of  the  Iron  Canyon  reservoir  may  be  materially  increased  by  the 
adoption  of  means  whereby  storage  would  be  maintained  at  Hood  level,  this  without 
any  material  increase  in  ct)nst ruction  costs,  lleferring  to  the  1020  report  (page  12), 
we  note  that  the  capacity  of  the  reservoir  with  the  water  surface  at  400  feet 
elevation,  will  be  0(il.300  acre-feet,  a  gjiin  of  221.800  acre-feet,  or  a  gain  in  available 
storage  of  34.5  per  cent.  We  suggest  a  very  careful  restudy  of  the  spillways  and 
means  wherel)y  they  might  be  raised  after  all  danger  of  Hood  is  passed  and  the  full 
capacity  of  the  reservoir  th('rel)y  utilized.  In  this  connection  we  invite  attention 
to  the  fact  that  the  spring  and  early  summer  How  of  the  Sacramento  River  at  Iron 
(^inyon  is  very  large,  a  factor  which  would  V)e  advantageous  were  such  a  change 
of  plan   contemplated. 

We  ask  that  a  carefid  restudy  be  made  of  the  factor  which  will  govern  the  duty 
of  water  on  this  project.  The  report  of  11)20  assumes  it  will  be  necessary  to  divert 
4.125  acre-feet  per  acre  per  annum  at  the  head  of  the  main  canal.  It  is  believed 
a  less  quantity  of  water  A\all  be  ample  and  that  the  acreage  to  be  watered  in  pro- 
portion to  the  quantity  of  water  available  may  be  materially  increased,  and  we 
would  like  to  have  this  matter  made  the  subject  of  careful  and  painstaking 
investigation. 

The  foregoing  are  the  main  points  which  have  occurred  to  us.  No  doubt  other 
features  will  occur  to  you  as  warranting  further  study.  We  very  respectfully  ask 
that  the  project  be  resurveyed  with  a  view  to  the  development  of  the  most 
economical,  most  practical  and  most  desirable  plan,  and  that  report  be  made  thereon, 
including  plans  and  estimates  of  cost. 

A  copy  of  this  letter  is  being  forwarded  to  ]Mr.  W.  F.  McClure,  Chief,  Division 
of  Engineering  and  Irrigation.  State  Deiiartment  of  Public  Works,  with  request 
that  the  division  coojierate  in  this  survey  and   in  defraying  the  cost  thereof. 

Your  favorable  consideration  will   be  cordially  appreciated. 

Yours  very  truly, 

(Signed)  W.  A.  Beabd,  President, 
Sacramento   Valley   Development  Association. 
Vice  President,  Iron  Canyon  Project  Association. 


M 


I 


DEVELOPMExN'T  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  155 

KXHIBIT   2. 

DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR 

BUREAU  OF  RECLAMATION 

Contract  between  the  United  States;  Tlie  Department  of  I'uhlic  Works,  Division 
of  Engineering  and  Irrigation,  of  the  State  of  California,  and  the  Sacramento 
\'alle.v  Development  Association,  providing  for  continuation  of  cooperative 
investigation  of  the  proposed  Iron  Canyon  Project  and  cooperative  investigation 
of  proposed  control  works  on  the   Lower  Sacramento  River,   Cal. 

THIS  AGREEMENT,  Made  this  2Gth  day  of  January,  1924,  between  the 
UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA,  by  LIUBERT  WORK,  Secretary  of  the  Interior, 
pursuant  to  the  act  of  February  21,  1$)23  (42  Stat.,  1281),  and  the  act  of  March  4, 
1923  (42  Stat..  1540).  partv  of  the  first  part;  the  DEPARTMENT  OF  PUBLIC 
WORKS,  DIVISION  OF  EN(;iNEERING  AND  IRRIGATION,  OP  THE  STATE 
OF  CALIFORNIA,  pursuant  to  Chapter  280,  Session  Laws  of  California  1923,  and 
Chapter  121.  Session  Laws  of  California  192;'..  partv  of  the  second  part,  and  the 
SACRAMENTO  VALLEY  DEVELOPMENT  ASSOCIATION  (a  Corporation 
duly  organized  and  existing  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  California),  party  of  the 
third  part ;  Witnesseth  : 

2.  WHEREAS,  The  Secretary  of  the  Interior  has  allotted  from  the  appropriation 
made  for  miscellaneous  investigations  of  reclamation  projects,  available  until  Decem- 
ber 31,  1924,  the  sum  of  Twenty  Thousand  Dollars  ($20,000)  to  be  expended  in  the 
continuation  of  investigations  of  the  proposed  Iron  Canyon  Project  and  in  the  investi- 
gation of  proposed  control  works  on  the  Lower  Sacramento  River  in  California,  and 

3.  WHEREAS,  The  Department  of  Public  Works,  Division  of  Engineering  and 
Irrigation,  of  the  State  of  California,  has  available  the  sum  of  Ten  Thousand  Dollars 
($10,000)  to  be  expended  in  said  investigations,  and 

4.  WHEREAS,  The  Sacramento  Valley  Development  Association  has  available 
the  sum  of  Ten  Thousand  Dollars  ($10,000)  to  be  expended  in  said  investigations,  and 

5.  WHEREAS.  The  Commissioner  of  the  Bureau  of  Reclamation  has,  under  the 
authority  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  approved  for  investigation  and  is  willing 
to  undertake  and  make  the  examinations,  surveys  and  estimates  necessary  to 
determine  the  feasibility  of  alternate  plans  now  suggested  in  connection  with  the 
proposed  Iron  Canyon  Project  in  California,  and  also  investigation  of  a  proposed 
system  of  control  works  on  the  Lower  Sacramento  River  in  the  State  of  California. 

6.  NOW,  THEREFORE,  in  consideration  of  the  premises  and  the  mutual  cove- 
nants and  agreements  herein  contained,  it  is  stipulated  and  agreed  between  the 
parties  hereto  as  follows  : 

7.  The  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  upon  the  execution  of  this  contract,  will  make 
available  for  the  work  proposed  herein,  the  sum  of  Twenty  Thousand  Dollars 
($20,000)  ;  the  Department  of  Public  Works.  Division  of  Engineering  and  Irriga- 
tion, of  the  State  of  California,  upon  the  execution  of  this  contract,  will  make  avail- 
able as  hereinafter  provided,  for  the  work  proposed  herein,  the  sum  of  Ten  Thousand 
Dollars  ($10,000)  and  the  Sacramento  Valley  Development  Association,  upon  the 
execution  of  this  contract,  will  deposit  with  tiie  Special  Fiscal  Agent  of  the  Bureau 
of  Reclamation  at  Denver.  Coloi-ado.  for  tli(»  work  proposed  herein,  the  sum  of  Ten 
Thousand  Dollars  ($10,000). 

S.  As  to  the  said  sum  of  Ten  Thousand  Dolhirs  ($10,000)  to  be  made  available  by 
the  Department  of  Public  Works.  Division  of  Engineering  and  Irrigation,  of  the 
State  of  California,  the  Engineer  in  charge  of  tlie  work,  pursuant  to  paragraph  13 
hereof,  sliall  determint'  in  his  discretion  the  items  of  expenditure  which  shall  ho 
chargeable  against  said  sum.  and  shall  voucher  the  said  items  directly  to  the  State 
officer  designated  by  the  Department  of  Public  W^orks,  Division  of  Engineering  and 
Irrigation,  of  the  State  of  California. 

9.  Each  item  of  the  work  need  not  be  i)ai(l  in  the  proportion  of  the  funds  provided 
by  this  agreement,  but  the  aggregate  cost  of  the  woi-k  shall  be  paid  in  said  proportion, 
to-wit :  one-half  (^)  by  the  United  States.  one-fo»irth  (.})  by  the  Sacramento  Valley 
Develojjnient  Association  and  one-fourth  (i)  by  the  Department  of  Public  Works, 
Division  of  Engineering  and  Irrigation,  of  the  State  of  California  ;  provided,  that 
any  payments  in  excess  of  said  proportion  made  by  either  party  out  of  the  funds 
available  during  the  progress  of  the  work  shall  be  adjusted  when  the  report  con- 
templated by  paragraph  lij  hereof  is  made;  provided  further,  th.-it  shoulrl  the  entire 
amount  herein  provided  be  not  expended  there  shall  be  returned  to  each  jiarty  nny 
exces.s  of  the  money  made  a\ailable  by  it  over  its  i)roportion  of  tlie  exjjenditure. 


156  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

10.  When  the  sums  of  money  as  specified  in  paragraphs  7  and  8  have  been  made 
available  as  therein  provided,  the  Bureau  of  Reclamation  of  the  Department  of  the 
Interior  and  the  State  Department  of  Public  Works  acting  in  cooperation,  wUl,  so  far 
as  the  expenditure  of  the  sum  of  Forty  Thousand  Dollars  ($40,000)  will  permit; 
(a)  Make  such  additional  examinations,  investigations  and  studies  as  may  be 
determined  advisable  in  connection  with  the  water  supply,  flood  control  and  power 
development  at  the  proposed  dam  and  resenoir  site  heretofore  investigated  at  Iron 
Canyon,  including  the  necessary  changes  in  plans  and  estimates  to  provide  reliable 
information  theroon  under  such  new  conditions  as  may  now  be  proposed,  (b)  Make 
examination  and  survey  of  a  proposed  canal  (known  as  the  Low  Line  Canal)  divert- 
ing from  the  Sacramento  River  at  or  near  the  mouth  of  Red  Bank  Creek  for  the 
irrigation  of  lands  on  the  west  side  of  the  river  in  the  proposed  Iron  Canyon  Project. 
Said  investigations  will  include  (1)  classification  of  materials,  the  preparation  of 
designs  and  estimates  of  cost  of  construction  and  the  examination  of  irrigable  lands 
for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  estimated  per  acre  cost  and  the  feasibility  of  the 
reclamation  thereof,  and  (li)  examination  of  feasibility  of  irrigation  of  lands  in 
Tehama  County,  California,  lying  above  said  Low  Line  Canal,  by  pumping  from 
said  canal  or  otherwise.  Said  investigation  and  report  are  also  to  bring  up  to  date 
the  study  of  the  water  supply  data  for  said  Proposed  Iron  Canyon  Project  and  the 
possibilities  for  irrigation  and  power  development  therefrom,  (c)  Make  examination 
and  investigation  of  the  cost  and  feasibility  of  constructing  control  works  on  the 
Sacramento  River  so  as  to  prevent  the  salt  water  from  San  Francisco  Bay  rendering 
the  fresh  water  in  the  river  unfit  for  irrigation  and  domestic  use  during  periods  of 
low  river  flow.  Said  examination  and  report  will  include  investigation  of  surface 
and  subsurface  conditions  in  connection  with  the  development  of  plans  and  estimates 
of  cost  of  the  proposed  I'egulation. 

Provided,  that,  of  the  total  sum  of  $40,000  to  be  made  available  for  this  work  the 
sum  of  $10,0(X)  or  as  much  thereof  as  may  be  needed  shall  be  expended  upon  the 
surveys  and  investigations  relating  to  the  Iron  Canyon  Project  which  are  set  forth 
in  paragraphs  (a)  and  (b)  of  this  .section,  and  the  sum  of  $30,000  together  with  any 
surplus  remaining  from  that  portion  of  the  fund  herein  specified  to  be  used  upon  the 
Iron  Canyon  Project  surveys,  shall  be  expended  in  examinations  and  investigations 
relating  to  the  cost  and  feasibility  of  constructing  control  works  on  the  lower  Sacra- 
mento River,  as  provided  in  paragraph  (c)  of  this  section. 

11.  The  Bureau  of  Reclamation  of  the  Department  of  the  Interior,  the  Depart- 
ment of  Public  Works,  Division  of  Engineering  and  Irrigation,  of  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia, and  the  Sacramento  Valley  Development  Association,  agree  to  furnish  for  this 
investigation,  as  they  may  be  called  for.  all  records  and  reports  and  engineering  data 
concerning  the  work  to  be  performed  under  this  contract,  that  they  now  have  or  that 
they  can  feasibly  obtaic. 

Receipts  shall  be  given  for  data  furnished  and  said  data  will  be  retui'ned  to  said 
l)arties  at  the  close  of  these  investigations. 

12.  All  surveys  and  investigations  contemplated  hereunder  shall  follow  a  general 
I)lan  of  operation  to  be  agreed  upon  by  the  Chief  Engineer  of  the  Bureau  of  Reclama- 
tion, the  State  Engineer  of  California,  and  the  Sacramento  Valley  Development 
Association,  through  its  President  and  General  Manager.  Said  plan  may  be  amended 
from  time  to  time  as  the  work  progresses. 

lo.  The  work  shall  he  performed  by  tlie  Bureau  of  Reclamation  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  the  Interior  under  the  supervision  of  an  Engineer  designated  by  the  Chief 
Engineer  of  the  said  Bureau.  An  Assistant  Engineer  shall  be  designated  by  the  State 
Department  of  Public  Works.  Division  of  Engineering  and  Irrigation,  to  work  under 
the  direction  of  the  said  supervising  engineer. 

14.  On  comidetion  of  the  surveys  and  investigations  herein  provided  for,  all  field 
notes,  original  plans,  calculations,  reports  and  other  data  ac^juired  or  prepared  during 
the  investigations  and  surveys  shall  be  filed  with  the  Bureau  of  Reclamation  of  the 
Department  of  the  Interior,  and  complete  copies  thereof  shall  l>e  furnished  the  State 
Department  of  Public  Works.  The  said  original  records  shall  be  accessible  at  all 
times  to  the  State  Engineer  of  California,  or  his  duly  authorized  rei)resentative.  and 
to  the  duly  authorized  representative  of  the  Sacramento  ^'alley  Development  Asso- 
ciation, upon  application. 

ir».  A  report  of  the  res\dts  of  said  surveys  and  investigations  shall  be  promptly 
made  by  the  Engineer  of  the  Bureau  of  Reclamation  in  charge,  outlining  the  scope 
of  the  investigations,  and  giving  .-i  complete  record  thereof  with  detailed  estimates  as 
contemplated  by  paragraph  1(1  hereof,  with  suitable  explanatory  maps,  plans  and 
other  documents  as  exhibits,  together  with  the  names  of  the  parties  hereto  and  all 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UF'PER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  157 

cooperatiug  officers  and  a  summary  of  expenditures  incurred  in  the  investigations, 
which  expenditures  shall  include  the  usual  overhead  and  general  charges  of  the 
Bureau  of  Reclamation.  The  report  and  recommendatious  shall  be  subject  to  the 
joint  approval  of  the  Chief  Engineer  of  the  Bureau  of  Reclamation  and  the  State 
Engineer  of  California.  In  case  of  tlieir  failure  to  agree,  the  Chief  Engineer  of  the 
Bureau  of  Reclamation  and  the  State  Engineer  of  California  shall  submit  separate 
conclusions  and  recommendations,  botli  of  which  shall  be  emlwdied  with  the  report. 

16.  This  contract  provides  only  for  preliminary  surveys  and  investigations  insofar 
as  the  funds  to  be  made  available,  as  provided  in  paragraphs  7  and  8  hereof,  will 
pei-mit  and  in  no  way  obligates  the  United  States,  the  Department  of  Public  Works, 
Division  of  Engineering  and  Irrigation,  of  the  State  of  California,  or  the  Sacra- 
mento Valley  Development  Association,  as  to  any  future  action  regarding  the  pro- 
posed projects.  All  work  and  expenditure  under  this  contract  shall  cease  whenever 
the  funds  to  be  so  made  available  as  provided  in  paragraphs  7  and  8  hereof  shall 
become  exhausted  whether  said  work  shall  have  been  completed  or  not. 

17.  No  member  of  or  Delegate  to  Congress,  or  Resident  Commissioner,  after  his 
election  or  appointment  or  either  before  or  after  he  has  qualified  and  during  his 
continuance  in  office,  and  no  officer,  agent,  or  employee  of  the  Government,  shall  be 
admitted  to  any  share  or  part  of  this  conti'act  or  agreement,  or  to  any  benefit  to 
arise  thereupon.  Nothing,  however,  herein  contained  shall  be  construed  to  extend 
to  any  incorporated  company,  where  such  contract  or  agreement  is  made  for  the 
general  benefit  of  such  incorporation  or  company,  as  provided  in  section  116  of  the 
act  of  Congress  approved  March  4,  1909   (35  Stat.,  1109). 

IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  this  contract  has  been  executed  by  the  parties  hereto 
the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 

THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA, 
By  Hubert  Woek,  May  7,  1924, 
Secretary  of  the  Interior. 


(seal) 


Attest: 

Myrtle  V.  Murray,  Secretary. 


Attest : 

M.  A.  Sexton,  Secretary. 


DEPARTMENT  OF  PUBLIC  WORKS, 
DIVISION  OF  ENGINEERING 
AND  IRRIGATION,  OF  THE 
STATE  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

By    W.    F.    McClure,    Director    of 

Public  Works  and  State  Engineer. 


SACRAMENTO    VALLEY    DEVELOP- 
MENT ASSOCIATION, 

By    W.    A.    Beard,    President    and 

General  Manager. 


158  WATER  RESOURCES  OF   CALIFORNIA. 


EXHIBIT  3. 

Borkcley.  Californiii,  June  1),  11)24. 


Ajiroeniout  covering  general  plan  uf  itrucediuT  for  surveys  and  investigations  of 
a  proposed  system  of  control  works  on  the  lower  Sacramento  River  and  certain 
alternative  plans  for  the  proposed  Iron  Canvon  project,  all  in  the  Sacramento 
Valley,  State  of  California. 


The  undersigned  at  a  meeting  held  in  the  office  of  the  Bureau  of  Reclamation  at 
Berkeley,  California,  on  the  day  and  date  above  written,  with : 

W.  L.  Huher  A.  J.  Cleary 

G.  A.  Elliott  B.  A.  Etcheverry 

members  present  of  an  advisory  committee  appointed  by  the  California  State 
Department  of  I'ublic  Works,  agreed  upon  the  following  as  an  outline  of  a  tentative 
program   to  be  followed  in  the  above  named  investigations. 

Lower    Sacramento    River    Control    Worl<s. 

1.  It  is  recognized  that  the  primary  purpose  of  this  investigation  is  to  determine 
the  feasibility  and  probable  cost  of  a  system  of  control  works  as  proposed  and  to 
this  end  the  funds  now  available  are  to  be  devoted  chiefly  to  investigation  of 
prospective  dam  sites,  designs  and  estimates  of  cost. 

2.  Sites  to  be  considered : 

Field  work  to  be  confined  to  Army  Point.  Dillon  Point  and  San  Pablo  Point  sites. 

3.  Field  examinations : 

One  outfit  operating  two  shifts  to  be  placed  on  diamond  drilling.  Work  to  begin 
at  Army  Point  site.  Number  of  holes  to  be  adjusted  to  costs  as  work  progesses.  At 
least  two  or  three  holes  to  be  drilled  in  the  sections  of  deepest  water  at  the  Dillon 
and  San  Pablo  Point  sites.  Holes  to  be  located  primarily  for  estimating  quantities 
of  eai'th  and  rock  fill  and  possible  location  of  lock  structures.  No  land  holes  to  be 
drilled,  surface  indications  being  deemed  sufficient  for  estimating  purposes.  It  is 
expected  that  ■$15,000  to  $20,000  will  be  expended  in  exploration  work.  Based 
upon  estimates  prepared  by  Mr.  Young  and  informal  bids  received  from  the  Inter- 
national Diamond  Drill  Contracting  Co.  of  San  Francisco  it  is  believed  that  it  will 
be  more  economical  to  do  the  drilling  by  force  account.  Moreover,  force  account 
work  is  considered  advisable  in  this  instance  since  it  allows  for  a  more  flexible 
program. 

4.  Office  studies : 

(a)  Effect  of  barrier  on  flood  plane  elevations,  silting  of  Susuin  and  San  Pablo 
Bays,  tidal  prism  of  San  Francisco  Bay,  and  navigation. 

(b)  Design  of  barrier.  Principal  consideration  to  be  given  to  plan  of  con- 
structing locks  and  gates  to  one  side  and  making  an  earth  and  rock  fill  across 
the  natural  channel.  Trial  designs  of  other  types  of  structure  to  be  made  in  sketch 
form  only. 

(c)  Design  of  required  locks  and  gates  for  navigation  and  passage  of  flood 
water.  Desirable  design  condition  for  passing  floods  is  that  an  area  of  waterway 
be  provided  in  structure  equal  to  that  of  the  present  natural  channel.  Flood 
plane  should  be  run  through  Susuin  Bay  joining  on  the  Debris  Commission  eleva- 
tions at  Collinsville.  Flood  quantities  of  the  Debris  Commission  to  be  used  and 
marsh  land  in  Susuin  Bay  outside  of  that  necessary  for  a  channel  to  he  assumed 
as  reclaimed. 

5.  Preparation  of  i"eport. 

Iron    Canyon    Project. 
1.  Field  work : 

Survey  of  low  line  canal  taking  out  of  river  in  the  vicinity  of  Red  Bank  Creek. 
Survey  to  be  adequate  for  making  estimate  of  costs  and  areas  of  land  above  and 
below  canal  line.     To  be  run  south  as  far  as  funds  will  permit. 

Survey  of  siphon  across  Sacramento  River  if  funds  are  sufficient. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  inTER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  159 

2.  Office  studies: 

(a)  Dotormiue  from  maps  tlie  nrcas  that  can  b«>  served  by  gravity  and  the  pump- 
ing lifts  t(i  other  areas. 

(b)  Cost  estimate  of  canal  and  structures. 

(c)  Revise  estimates  of  power  that  can  be  developed  at  Iron  Canyon  dam. 

(d)  Consider  use  of  gates  in   spillway   for   increasing  storage   behind   dam. 

(e)  Revise  cost  estimates  of  dam. 

3.  Preparation   of   report. 

DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR. 
BUREAU  OF  RECLAMATION, 
By  Walkee  R.  Young,  Engineer. 

DEPARTMENT  OF  PUBLIC  WORKS, 
DIVISION  OF  ENGINEERING 
AND  IRRIGATION, 

By  Paul  Bailey,  Deputy  Chief  of 
Division. 

SACRAMENTO   VALLEY   DEVELOP- 
MENT ASSOCIATION, 
By  W.  A.  Beard,  President. 


160 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


EXHIBIT    i. 

STATEMENT  OF  COST. 

Iron  Canyon  Investigations— Sacramento  Valley,  California,  as  of 

October  31,  1925. 


Period' 

Engineer  in  charge 

Cost  incurred  by — 

State 

Association 

United  States 

Total 

1913-1915 

J.  T.  Whistler    

$9,133.44 
29,417.29 
2.500.00 

$9,600.39 
8.839.35 
5,798.21 

$18  733  83 

1910-1921 

H.  J.  Gault 

?8.670  38 
1.627.00 

26  927  02 

1924-1925 

Walker  R.  Young 

>9,925.21 

Totals 

$10,297.38 

$21,050.73 

$24,237,95 

$55,586.06 

'  Hirlv  costs  on  the  Iron  Canyon  project  were  included  in  Sacramento  Valley  accounts,  1E02-1904,  no  detail  being 
recorded  for  the  v.iriius  features  investigated. 

'Includes  o.st  of  printing  and  biiding  report,  which  expense  was  entirely  met  by  the  association. 

'  Costs  as  of  Oetobir  31.  1025.  .\t  clo-^ie  of  current  investigations  in  the  Sacramento  Valley,  it  will  1  e  necessary  to 
make  final  a  Ij  istment  with  the  Stite  of  Califunda  as  provided  by  existing  contracts. 


EXHIBIT  5. 


DETAIL  STATEMENT  OF  COST. 

Total  Cost  of  Investigation  of  the  Iron  Canyon  Project,  California,  as  of 
October  31,  1925,  under  contract  dated  January  26,  1924. 

Location  surveys $3,475 .  28 

Topographic  surveys 43 .  63 

Estimates 4,544.79 

Consulting  boards  (engineering) 72.28 

Engineering  and  inspection 83.34 

Subtotal $8,219.32 

Superintendence  and  accounts. 1,154.89 

General  expense  (expenses  of  general  offices) 551 .00 

Total  actual  cost $9,925 .21 

Contingencies  (a) 74.79 

Grand  total $10,000.00 

The  above  cost  has  been  incurred  by  the  various  parties  to  contract  of  January  26, 1924,  as  follows: 

Sicraraento  Valley  Development  .\s30ciation. $2,500.00 

State  of  California. 1.627.00 

United  States 5,798 .21 

Total  actual  cost $9,925.21 

Note. — (a)  Estimated;  to  cover  minor  miscellaneous  expenses  incurred  in  preparation  of  report,  etc. 


EXHIBIT   6. 

STATE   OP  CALIFORNIA 

DEPARTMENT    OF    ENGINEERING 

SACRAMENTO 


REPORT  ON 

IRON  CANYON  SURVEY— EAST  SIDE  CANAL 

APRIL,  1921 

J.  B.  Brown,  Assistant  State  Engineer. 
H.  L.  McCready,  Hydrographer. 


11—50667 


CONTENTS. 


Page 

Letter  of  transmittal 163 

Outline  of  project 163 

Duty  of  water  and  elements  of  high  line  canal 164 

Estimated  cost  of  high  line  canal 104 

Outline  of  low  line  canal 165 

Duty  of  water  and  elements  of  low  line  canal 165 

Secondary  canal  of  low  line  canal  system 165 

Duty  of  water  for  secondary  canal  system 165 

Elements  of  secondary  canal  system 165 

Estimates  of  costs,  secondary  canal  system 165 

Pumping  station 166 

Generation  of  electrical  energy 166 

Use  of  electrical  energy  in  pumping  station 166 

Estimated  cost  of  pumping  station 166 

Estimated  cost  of  low  line  canal 166 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


163 


STATK    OF   CALIFORNIA 
DKI'ARTMKNT   OF    F,\<;iNFFIJI  \(; 

S.icrmiriilo,  April  30th,  1921. 
-Mr.   W.  F.  Mc'Ci.UKE, 

State  Engineer, 

Building. 

Subject :  Iron  Canyon  Survey — East  Side  Canal. 

Dear  Mr.  :McClure: 

There  is  submitted  herewith  a  report  and  map  of  the  recent  reconnaissance 
of  the  Iron  Capyon  Survey — East  Side  Canal. 

Two  routes  have  been  studied,  a  high  line  extending  from  the  easterly  end  of 
the  Iron  Canyon  dam  in  a  general  southeasterly  direction,  passing  to  the  north 
and  east  of  Chico  and  terminating  at  Butte  Creek.  The  irrigable  acreage  under 
this  canal  is  approximately  78.000  acres.  Construction  costs  would  be  heavy 
due  to  the  difficult  country  traversed. 

The  second  study  contemplates  the  diversion  of  water  from  the  Sacramento  River 
by  means  of  a  pumping  plant  located  about  one  mile  below  Tehama.  By  utilizing 
the  Sacramento  River  Channel  a  saving  of  22  miles  of  main  canal  is  made,  with 
the  further  advantages  of  more  favorable  soil  conditions  for  excavation  and  the 
development  of  additional  power  at  the  Iron  Canyon  dam  by  passing  the  water 
recpiired  for  this  canal  through  the  turbines.  A  short  auxiliary  canal  from  the 
easterly  end  of  the  Iron  Canyon  dam  would  serve  about  7,000  acres  of  land  to  the 
eastward  of  Red  Bluff.  The  total  acreage  served  by  the  two  canals  under  the  low 
line  project  is  71,000  acres. 

Field  work  for  this  report  was  done  by  J.  B.  Brown,  Assistant  State  Engineer, 
and  H.  L.  McCi-eady,  Hydrographer,  during  the  week  of  March  22d  to  March  26th. 
The  estimate,  report  and  map  are  the  work  of  H.  L.  McCready  and  have  been 
compiled   during   the  month   of  April,   1021. 

Very  respectfully, 

(Signed)    J.  B.  Brown,  Assistant  State  Engineer. 
JBB  :LAB 


In  the  report  herewith  submitted  an  effort  has  been  made  to  outline  in  a 
general  way  an  irrigation  project  embracing  the  lands  on  the  cast  side  of  the 
Sacramento  River,  below  and  adjacent  to  the  proposed  Iron  Canyon  project,  this 
area  to  become  a  part  of  the  Iron  Canyon  project  and  derive  its  supply  from  the 
waters  impounded  in  the  proposed  Iron  Canyon  reservoir. 

The  area  in  question  extends  southward  beyond  the  city  of  Chico  to  approxi- 
mately the  nortbeni  limits  of  the  lands  irrigated  by  the  Western  Canal  Co.  On 
the  east  it  is  bounded  by  the  lower  line  of  a  type  of  soil  described  by  the  Bureau 
of  Soils  of  the  U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture  as  the  Tuscan  stony  loams.  These 
Tuscan  stony  loams  are  classified  as  lands  that  would  not  be  benefited  by  irrigation 
to  any  extent ;  they  present  a  surface  appearance  of  water-washed  cobbles  and 
have  a  deeper  formation  of  cemented  gravel.  Where  canals  are  located  in  this 
formation  a  high  unit  cost  of  construction  is  anticipated. 

The  area  of  irrigable  land  within  this  scope  of  country  not  now  within  irriga- 
tion districts 'is  estimated  at  82,000  acre.s. 

The  outlines  of  two  plans  for  the  main  canal  will  be  given. 

First,  a  gravity  system  canal  here  designated  as  tlie  liigh  line  canal,  starting  at 
the  dam  site  at  an  elevation  of  riJ^O  feet  passing  just  above  the  comparatively  rough 
hills  east  of  the  city  of  Los  Molinos,  continuing  iibove  the  upper  line  of  the  irrigable 
lands  passing  to  the  east  of  the  city  of  Chico  ending  .if  BuHc  Creek,  elevation  200 
feet,  in  the  SEJ  of  SW^,  Sec.  8,  T.  21  N.,  R.  2  E. 

Tliere  are  78,000  acres  of  land  under  this  canal,  I).")  per  cent  of  the  irrigable 
land  considered.  Four  acre-feet  of  water  per  acre  will  be  assumed  as  sufficient 
for  the  season,  distributed  as  follows: 


164 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


Month 

Feet  iier  acre 

Acre-feet 

Per  cent 

Second-feet 

Marcli                      

0.24 
0.40 
0.50 
0.76 
0.84 
0.76 
0.28 
0.08 
0.08 

18,700 
31,200 
43,700 
59.300 
65,500 
59,300 
21,800 
6,300 
6,200 

6 

10 

14 

19 

21 

I'J 

7 

2 

2 

304 

324 

711 

•Jitti 

July                        .' 

1,060 

996 

fipntpmber                 

363 

October              

105 

Novpmbpr                                

103 

Totals                          

4.00 

312,000 

100 

The  following  are  the  elements  of  this  proposed  high-line  canal: 


Point 

Acres 

Miles 

Distance 

Depth  and 
bottom 
width 

Slope, 

feet  per 

mile 

Velocity, 
feet  per 
second 

Capacity, 
second-feet 

Dam          

78.000 
68,000 
51,000 
40,000 
32,000 

0 
6 
37 
40 
44 
52 
56 

6 
31 
3 
4 
8 

10'x20' 
10' X  18' 

9'x  13' 
8  5'xl2' 

8'  X  10' 

1.06 
1.06 
1.59 
1.85 
1.85 

4.50 
4.45 
4.75 
4.97 
4.65 

1,066 

930 

Creek 

700 

llock  Creek 

5,50 

Mud  Creek     

440 

(^hico  Creek 

Butte  Creek  

20,000 

4 

6.5'x    8' 

2.11 

4. si 

270 

.Side  slopes  of  canals  for  estimate  purposes  taken  as  1  to  1. 


Estimated  cost  of  high-line  canal: 

Yardage 1,538,000 

Cemented  gravel 1,443,000  cubic  yards  at  |1.25=$1,800,000 

Earth 95.000  cubic  .yards  at     .40^--       38,000 

30  creeks  and  arroyos  requiring  structures,  flumes  or  siphons,  average  length  200',  cost  of  $200  per 
linealfoot 1,200,000 

Concrete  lining  for  44  miles  of  canal: 

1,162,000  square  yards  3  inches  thick  at  $1.10 $1,280,000 

Right  of  way 20,000 

35  bridges  at  an  average  cost  of  $1,200 42,000 

Fencing  112  miles  at  $600 67.200 

Telephone  system 40,000 

Contingencies,  10  per  cent 448,720 

Total $4.93.5,920 

Cost  per  acre  of  main  canal,  $63. 

The  second  general  plan  of  main  canal  here  designated  as  the  low-line  canal,  is  to  install  a  pumping  station  about 
one  mile  below  the  city  of  Tehama  and  pump  water  into  a  canal  at  elevation  210  feet.  This  canal  would  be  located  very 
nearly  at  tlie  upper  line  of  the  irrigable  lands  and  would  pass  to  the  north  and  west  of  the  city  of  Chico,  ending  at  the 
Southern  Pacific  Railway  in  NE?4,  NE}^,  section  24,  township  21  north,  range  1  east,  at  elevation  about  170  feet. 
There  are  64,000  acres  of  irrigable  land  under  this  canal  in  need  of  water  in  addition  to  7,000  acres  of  land  east  of  the 
eitv  of  Red  Bluff  which  could  be  irrigated  by  a  small  canal  extended  directly  from  the  Iron  Canyon  dam,  making  a  total 
of  71.000  acres  under  this  canal  s.vstem  or  86  per  cent  of  the  total  irrigable  land  considered. 

The  duty  of  water  and  distribution  for  the  main  canal  is  taken  the  same  as  for  the  proposed  high-line  canal,  as 
follows: 


Month 


March .  . .  . 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August.  . . . 
September . 
October. . . 
November . 

Totals 


Feet  per  acre 


0.24 
0.40 
0  56 
0.76 
0.84 
0.76 
0  28 
0.08 
0.08 


4.00 


Acre-feet 


255,870 


Per  cent 


15,370 

6 

256 

25,600 

10 

427 

35,800 

14 

597 

48,600 

19 

810 

53,800 

21 

897 

48,600 

19 

810 

17,900 

1 

298 

5,100 

2 

85 

5,100 

2 

85 

100 


Second-feet 


DE\^LOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


165 


The  following  are  the  elements  of  the  proposed  low-line  canal: 


Point 

.Veres 

Miles 

Distance 

Depth  and 
bottom 
width 

Slope. 

feet  per 

mile 

Velocity, 
feet  per 
second 

Capacity, 
second-feet 

Pump  station 

0 
15 
20 
22 
27 
30 
32 
34 

15 
5 
2 
5 
3 
2 
2 

10.5' X  16' 
9.5'x  13' 
8.5'x  \?.' 
8.0'x  ir 
7.S'x  10' 
7'     X    8' 
6'     X    6' 

1.06 
1.19 
1.32 
1.45 
1.53 
1.59 
1.59 

4.31 
4.30 
4.31 
4.00 
3.95 
3.45 
3  10 

Hock  Creek 

64,000 
47,000 
37,000 
29,000 
24.000 
10,000 
8,000 

897 

M  ud  Creek 

660 

Chico  Creek 

Secondary  canal 

518 
406 

Secondary  canal 

336 

Secondary  canal 

224 

End  canal                     ... 

112 

Proposed  cannl  to  irrigate^ 7000  acres  of  land  east  of  the  city  of  Red  BluflF  to  be  constructed  as  part  of  the  low-line 
cana!  system. 

This  canal  starts  at  the  Iron  Canyon  dam.  elevation  300  feet,  is  Q%  miles  long  and  ends  at  the  northerly  corner  of 
lot  35.  sjbdivision  No.  9,  of  the  Los  Molinrs  Land  Company's  tracts. 

The  amount  of  water  diverted  per  acie  per  annum  for  this  canal  is  estimated  at  three  acre-feet  itistead  of  four  acre- 
feet  as  used  on  the  lower  main  canal  becau.se  of  the  great  difference  in  length;  this  canal  beng  only  6  miles  long. 

The  f.illowitig  distribution  and  amounts  of  watrr  are  estimated  to  be  required: 


Month 


March... 

.\pril 

May 

June 

July 

August .  . . , 
September , 
October.  .  . 
November . 

Totals 


Feet  per  acre 


0.18 
0.30 
0.42 
0.57 
0.63 
0.57 
0.21 
0.06 
0.06 


3.00 


.\cre-feet 


21.000 


Per  cent 


1.260 

6 

21 

2.100 

10 

35 

2.940 

14 

49 

3,990 

19 

67 

4,410 

21 

74 

3,990 

19 

67 

1,470 

1 

25 

420 

0 

7 

420 

2 

7 

100 


Second-feet 


Elements  of  the  secondary  canal  of  the  proposed  low-line  canal  system. 

Elements  of  Proposed  Secondary  Canal. 


Point 

.\cres 

Miles 

Distance, 
miles 

Depth  and 
bottom 
width 

Slope. 

feet  per 

mile 

Velocity, 
feet  per 
second 

Capacity, 
second-feet 

Dam  at  elevation  300  feet.  .  . . 
Distributing  canal    

7.000 
6,000 
2,000 

0 

2 

I'-i 
3M 

4'x4' 

4'x3.5' 

3'x3' 

5.28 
5.12 
.0035 

4.56 
4.20 
3.00 

74 
63 

Salt  Creek 

21 

End 

Estimated  cost: 

3,.500  cubic  yards  cemented  gravel  at  $1.25 .?4,375.0O 

17.000  cubic  vards  earth  at  00  cents 10.200.00 

5  bridges  at  S8()0 4.000.00 

Concrete  lining  for  3M  miles,  28,800  square  yards  at  $1.20 34.600.00 

Contingencies  and  extras,  20  per  cent 10,636.00 


Total 

Cost  of  canal  per  acre  of  ground,  $9. 


$63,811.00 


166 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


Estimated  Cost  of  Low-Line  Canal  Pumping  Station. 

Maxiinuin  quantity  of  water  to  he  puMiped,  8i)7  cubic  feet  i)er  second.  400.000  gillons  per  tiiiuute.  Tliis  quaiitit.v  of 
water  is  to  1)0  passed  through  the  turbines  at  the  Iron  Canyon  (him  generating  a  certain  amount  of  electrical  energy,  the 
water  will  (low  on  down  the  Hieramento  liiver  to  the  pr.iposed  pumping  station  where  if  will  be  lifted  into  the  low-line 
canal:  the  relative  generation  and  use  of  power  is  given  in  the  followirg  table: 


Month 

Head, 
feet 

Second- 
feet 

Foot 
pounds 

Efficiency 
factor 

ITorse- 
jiower 

Kilowatts 

130 

130 

130 

130 

130 

112 

98 

91 

88 

256 
427 
597 
810 
897 
810 
298 
85 
85 

2.080.000 
3.460.000 
4.850.000 
6.580.000 
7.280.000 
5.670.000 
1.826.000 
483.000 
467,000 

.61 
.61 
.61 
.61 
.61 
.61 
.61 
.61 
.61 

1,875 
3,120 
4.370 
5,920 
6.560 
5,110 
1,644 
435 
421 

1,400 

April                   

2.330 

3.260 

J  unc               

4.410 

July              : 

4.8:m 

Auciist                   

3  810 

1 .230 

.320 

November             

310 

Power  Used  in  Pumping. 


Month 


March . . . 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August  .  . 
September 
October  . 
November 


Lift 


20 
21 
24 
24 
25 
26 
23 
25 
24 


Second- 
feet 


256 
427 
597 
810 
897 
810 
298 
85 
85 


Foot 
pounds 


319,000 

559,000 

893.000 

1.212.000 

1.3.18.000 

1.314.000 

400.000 

132.600 

127.200 


Efficiency 
factor 


.61 
.61 
.61 

.61 
.61 
.61 
61 
.61 
.61 


Horse- 
power 


950 
1.670 
2.630 
3.610 
4.170 
3.910 
1.190 
400 
380 


Kilowatts 


710 

1.250 

1.960 

2,700 

3,110 

2,920 

8)0 

300 

280 


Excess 
kilowatts 
generated 


690 

1080 

1.300 

1.710 

1.780 

8.t0 

3  to 

20 

39 


The  excess  electrical  energy  generated  would  have  a  certain  value  and  reduce  the  cost  of  opcr.vtingand  niaintainirg 
the  pumping  station. 

Cost  of  Pumping  Station. 

Three  pumps:  46-inch.  70-inch  and  92-ineli $60,000.00 

Three  motors:  630.  1310  and  2260  horsepower 33.000.00 

Three  hvdraulic  gate  valves 5.000.00 

Pipe  and  flanges  (3  pumps) 12.000.00 

Transformers,  switclifjoards,  transmission,  etc 25.000.00 

Biilding.  sump 7.5.000.00 

Frcisrht.  cartage  and  installation 20.000.00 

Priming  and  pressure  system , • 6.000.00 

Contingencies  and  extras.  10  per  cent 23,600.00 

Total 5259,600.00 


Excavation; 

160,625  cubic  yards  cemented  gravel  at  $1.25. 
633,125  cubic  yards  earth  at  40  cents 


Cost  of  Low-Line  Canal. 


S20J,780  DO 

253.250.00 

Sixteen  creeks  and  arroyos  requiring  concrete  structures,  flumes  or  siphons,  average  length.  200  feet: 

Estimated  cost  at  $200  per  lineal  foot 640.000  00 

Concrete  lining  for  34  miles  of  canal,  774,800  square  yards  3-inch  lining  at  SI. 10 852,000.00 

Right  of  wav—  44  acres  at  ?20 $880 .00 

82  acres  at  150 12.300.00 

100  acres  at    50 5.000.00 

58  acres  at  400 23,200.00 


Total  for  right  of  way 41,380.00 

Twenty  bridges,  average  cost  81,200 24.000.00 

Fencing.  68  miles  at  $600 40.800.00 

Telephone  system 25.000 .  00 

Pumping  plant 259.600,00 

Contingencies,  10  per  cent 233,100.00 


Total 

Cost  per  acre  for  64,000  acres,  $40. 


.$2,569,900.00 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RR'ER.  167 

KXHIBIT  7. 

UNIVERSITY   OF  CALIFORNIA 

COLLEGE    OF   AGRICULTURE 

University   Farm,   Davis,   California, 

March  30,  1925. 
Mr.   Walker  R.   Young, 
Engineer,  Bureau  of  Reclamation, 
110  Agriculture  Hall, 
Berkeley,  California. 

Dear  Mr.  Young: 

Answer  to  your  inquiry  of  November  4th  last,  relating  to  probable  duty  of  water 
and  percentages  of  laud  that  should  be  considered  suitable  for  orchard  and  rice 
under  the  revised  plans  for  the  proposed  Iron  Canyon  project,  has  been  delayed 
by  numerous  causes,  chiefly  my  desire  to  await  completion  of  computations  on  our 
1924  water  duty  studies  in  Sacramento  Valley  and  my  desire  to  spend  a  few  days 
in  field  with  your  questions  before  me. 

The  questions  you  raise  would  obviously  desexwe  much  more  study  if  the  final 
design  and  the  construction  of  the  project  were  to  be  based  on  the  answers  given. 
For  purposes  of  present  planning,  however,  the  answers  given  below  ai-e  believed 
to  be  safe ;  i.  e.,  generous  enough  to  cover  all  reasonable  net  requirements  on  the 
land,  but  sufiiciently  low  to  force  good  preparation  of  the  land  and  such  careful 
and  efficient  methods  of  irrigation  as  shall  reasonably  restrict  use,  first,  to  the 
amounts  of  moisture  the  soil  will  retain,  and,  as  the  season  advances,  to  replenish- 
ing the  moisture  the  crop  utilizes  or  that  is  lost  by  causes  it  would  be  unreasonable 
to  expect  the  farmers  to  eliminate. 

With  the  above  explanation,  our  answers  to  your  questions  are  as  follows: 

1.  What  is  the  probable  net  duty  for  rice  on  clay  and   adobe  soils? 
Answer :  5  acre-feet  per  acre.     We  believe  that  land  requiring  more  water  than 

this  will  not  long  remain  in  rice.  With  the  exception  of  work  on  six  fields  in  1924, 
all  of  our  rice  duty  studies  have  been  carried  out  under  the  irrigation  practice 
first  used  almost  universally  but  now  generally  followed  on  first  and  second  year 
land  only,  viz :  to  keep  the  fields  moist  from  seeding  to  about  30  days  after 
emergence  of  the  plants  and  then  submerge  with  increasing  depths  up  to  about  6 
inches.  Present  practice  is  to  substitute  all-season  submergence  ;  i.  e.,  from  seeding 
to  draining  for  harvest.  Until  we  have  more  information  on  duty  under  all-season 
submergence  we  can  only  assume  that  duty  under  the  old  method  will  apply. 

2.  What  is  the  probable  net  duty  for  orchards? 

Answer:  From  1.00  to  1.50  acre-feet  per  acre,  averaging  (after  "weighting" 
according  to  soil  types  and  areas)  1.37  acre-feet  per  acre  ;  or,  for  general  present 
purpose,  1.50  acre-feet  per  acre. 

Our  basis  for  arriving  at  the  above  has  been  to  take  a  duty  of  1.00  acre-feet  per 
acre  for  loam  soils  6  to  10  feet  deep  with  ground  water  below  10  feet,  1.50  acre-feet 
per  acre  for  shallow  loams  with  tight  sub-soil  free  from  ground  water,  for  gravelly 
soils,  and  for  clays.  Witli  a  ground  water  liigher  than  10  feet  we  assume  a  use  of 
O.SO  acre-feet  per  acre,  but  have  not  included  any  such  areas.  More  is  required  on 
shallow  and  tight  soils,  not  because  the  soil  will  hold  more,  but  because  of  the 
larger  number  of  irrigations  required  and   the  consequent  greater  surface  losses. 

3.  AVhat  is  the  probable  net  duty  for  general  crops? 

Answer:  1  to  1.50  acre-feet  per  acre;  or,  generally,  1.50  acre-feet  per  acre,  the 
same  as  for  orchards. 

In  this  answer,  please  note  that  we  do  not  include  alfalfa  in  "general  crops." 
For  alfalfa  we  use  2.50  acre-feet  per  acre  for  loams,  2.00  acre-feet  per  acre  for 
clays,  and  4.00  acre-feet  per  acre  for  gravelly  soils,  or  a  weighted  average  of  2.75 
acre-feet  per  acre. 

4.  What  percentage  of  liie  area  above  the  proposed  low-line  canal  should  be 
considered  orchard  land? 

Answer:  50  jier  cent.  This  is  based  on  our  judgment  of  soil,  drainage,  topog- 
raphy, and  good  balance  combined. 

Note. — Furthermore,  we  make  field  crops  (not  counting  alfalfa)  interchangeable 
with  orchards  in  this  percentage.     The  percentage  we  assume  for  alfalfa  is  40. 


168  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

5.  Wliat  ptTcoiitase  of  (lie  ana  lulow  tin'  jiioposcd  low-line  canal  should  be 
considered  orchard  land? 

Answer:  Af,'ain  indiidinjj;  field  crops  (exclusive  of  alfalfa)  interchangeably.  25 
lier  cent,  and  alfalfa  45  per  cent. 

We  have  classed  as  orchard  land  all  of  the  Columbia,  Elder,  and  AUamont  series 
and  the  AVillows  loams,  but  all  of  these  soils  are  excellent  for  alfalfa  and  might  be 
so  classed,  except  for  their  general  value  for  orchards. 

G.  What  percentage  of  the  area  above  the  proposed  low-line  canal  should  be  con- 
sidered rice  land? 

Answer:  10  per  cent.  Includes  Kirkwood  clays,  Willows  clay  adobes,  and  Tehama 
clays   (one-half  only). 

7.  What  percentage  of  the  area  below  the  proposed  low-line  canal  should  be  con- 
sidered rice  land? 

Answer:  30  per  cent.  Includes  Kirkwood  clays.  Willows  clay  adobes.  Willows 
clays   (in  part  only),  Tehama  clays,  Sacramento  clays,  and  Capny  clays. 

Yours  truly, 

Frank  Adams, 

Professor  of  Irrigation  Investigations  and  Practice. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  169 

KXHIlilT  8. 
EXTRACTS 

From  paiier  road  lu'loro  the  Fit'ih  Annual  Convention  ol'  the  California  Section  of 
tlie  American  Waterworks  Association  at  Sacramento  on  October  24,  1924. 

CONTKOL  OF  APPROPIUATIONS  OF  WATER 
BY  THE   STATE  DIVISION  OF  WATER  RIGHTS 

by 

EDWARD  HYATT,  JR., 

CHIEF   OF  DIVISION   OF  WATER  RIGHTS 
V    STATE  DEPARTMENT  OF  PUBLIC  WORKS 

*  *  *  California  in  her  con.stitution  had  inherited  the  riparian  right  doctrine 
from  the  common  law  of  England  and  almost  from  the  first  the  difficulty,  or  rather 
impossibility,  of  reconciling  the  two  theories  was  apparent  (Riparian  and  Appropria- 
tion Doctrine). 

The  riparian  principle  is  that  the  right  to  the  water  in  a  stream  is  vested  entirely 
in  the  abutting  landowners ;  that  the  right  is  not  created  by  use  and  does  not  cease 
with  disuse.  It  originated  in  England,  a  land  of  humid  climate  where  irrigation  was 
imknown,  where  there  were  no  rights  in  a  stream  or  use  of  its  waters  other  than  by 
the  landowners  along  the  banks.  It  is  practically  universally  admitted  that  the  theory 
of  riparian  rights  is  entirely  unsuited  to  an  arid  region  or  one  where  the  lands 
require  irrigation.  Thus  it  is  seen  that  the  two  classes  of  water  rights  trace  their 
origin  to  entirely  different  sources  and  are  absolutely  conflicting  both  in  theory  and 
practice.  After  a  great  deal  of  litigation  the  issue  between  them  was  squarely  joined 
in  the  famous  case  of  Lux  vs.  Haggin,  which  was  decided  in  1886,  in  which  decision 
by  a  four  to  three  majority  the  riparian  right  was  held  to  be  a  right  of  property 
protected  under  constitutional  principles  and  superior  to  appropriative  claims.  By 
this  decision  riparian  rights  were  definitely  recognized  and  the  riparian  doctrine 
definitely  fastened  upon   the  state.     *     *     * 

*  *  *  Without  doubt,  California,  where  irrigation  was  so  important,  had  the 
poorest  water  laws  of  any  state  in  the  Union.  Many  other  irrigation  states  refused 
from  the  beginning  to  recognize  riparian  rights,  probably  as  a  direct  result  of  Cali- 
fornia's troubles,  and  in  the  nonirrigating  states  the  appropriation  doctrine  was 
unnecessary.     *     *     * 

*  *  *  In  California  there  was  determined  opposition  to  any  change,  however, 
by  the  holders  of  vested  water  rights,  i>articularly  by  riparian  owners,  and  the 
movement  for  a  water  code  was  unsuccessful  until  1913,  when  due  to  the  efforts  of 
several  earlier  boards  and  commissions  the  present  Water  Commission  Act  was 
passed. 

The  act  provided  a  code  for  the  orderly  administration  by  the  state  of  its  remain- 
ing water  resources,  for  ajudication  of  rights  already  in  existence,  for  the  distribu- 
tion of  water  by  water  master  to  water  right  owners,  and  for  stream  system  investi- 
gations. Due  to  the  conditions  described  the  statute  was  necessarily  long  and 
complicated.  The  basic  principles  as  established  by  court  decisions  through  sixty 
years  could  not  be  more  than  modified,  established  rights  could  not  l)e  endangered, 
and  unused  riparian  rights  being  more  or  l(>ss  property  rights  were  a  doubtful  subject 
of  legislation.  The  Water  Commission  Act  probably  went  as  far  as  possible  by 
legislation  to  establhsh  a  complete  and  efficient  code;  however,  the  simple  fact  teas 
that  a  direct  and  efficacious  solution  was  not  possiJilc  at  this  late  date  in  California 
as  it  has  heen  earlier  in  other  western  states.     *     *     * 

*  *  *  The  increasing  prosperity  of  the  state,  coupled  with  the  fact  that  further 
agricultural  and  power  development  is  limited  by  the  water  available,  has  tremen- 
dously accelerated  the  demand.  The  operation  of  the  Water  Commission  Act,  which 
provides  that  riparian  rights  not  used  by  1924  will  lapse,  has  also  had  its 
effect.     ♦     *     * 

*  *  *  As  already  explained,  since  the  Water  Commission  Act  went  into  effect 
in  1914,  appropriative  water  rights  can  be  acquired  only  under  its  provisions,  and, 
since  that  time,  all  such  rights  are  clearly  defined. 

However,  most  of  the  ))resent  irrigated  acreage  in  the  state  acquired  its  rights 
prior  to  the  Water  Commission  Act,  and  the  loose  methods  of  filing  then  existing 


170  WATER  RESOURCES  OP  CALIFORNIA. 

and  the  lack  of  supervision  to  determine  wliether  all  or  any  part  of  such  rights  have 
become  vested  by  use  has  resulted  in  the  existence  of  a  vast  number  of  rights  undefined 
and  in  a  great  many  cases  even  unrecorded.     *     *     * 

*  *  *  It  will  therefore  be  seen  that  California's  water  code  is  complete  as  to 
appropriative  water  rights.  Procedure  for  the  initiation  of  new  rights,  for  the 
adjudication  of  old  rights,  and  for  the  distribution  of  water  to  all  existing  rights  is 
complete,  and  the  problems  created  before  the  adoption  of  the  Water  Commission  Act 
could  be  graduiJly  and  surely  worked  out  were  it  not  for  the  riparian  right  situation. 
Returning  to  this  for  a  moment,  section  11  of  the  Water  Commission  Act  provides 
that  riparian  rights  not  exercised  for  a  period  of  ten  years  after  the  final  passage  of 
the  act  in  11)14  will  lapse.  This  law  will  very  shortly  become  effective.  If  we  were 
able  to  say  definitely  that  it  will  be  upheld  by  the  courts  the  solution  of  our  worst 
water  troubles  would  be  in  sight.  However,  legal  opinion  is  divided  as  to  whether  or 
not  this  law  will  be  upheld.  Some  of  the  best  qualified  attorneys  in  the  state  say  the 
United  States  Supreme  Court  will  in  no  case  allow  such  a  law,  even  if  the  State 
Supreme  Court  should,  others  that  the  United  States  court  will  uphold  the  state 
court  in  whatever  it  decides  in  this  case.  All  we  can  do  in  this  matter  is  to  wait  and 
hope  for  the  best.     *     *     * 

*  *  *  By  the  United  States  census  figures  there  were  10,900  acres  irrigated 
from  the  Sacramento  River  direct  in  in02  above  Sacramento,  and  194,000  acres  in 
1919 ;  that  is,  about  18  times  as  much  land  was  irrigated  in  1919  as  in  1902  from  the 
Sacramento  River  direct. 

The  majority  of  the  development  in  the  valley  has  come  about  since  1910,  and 
mainly  since  the  Water  Commission  Act  became  effective,  so  that  nearly  all  of  the 
larger  water  rights  from  the  river  have  been  secured  through  permit  from  the  State 
Water  Commission  or  Division  of  Water  Rights,  making  our  records  unusually 
complete  as  regards  the  Sacramento  Valley. 

*  *  *  The  irrigable  area  in  the  floor  of  the  Sacramento  Valley  is  2,700,000 
acres  besides  the  foothill  lands,  which  will  some  day  need  water.  Considering  that  by 
the  census  there  are  only  about  oOO,000  acres  irrigated  at  the  present  time,  it  is 
seen  that  irrigation  development  Avill  not  be  stopped  by  lack  of  suitable  agricultural 
lauds  in  the  Sacramento  Valley.     *     *     * 

*  *  *  rpYiQ  normal  low  flow  of  the  Sacramento  Ri\er  during  irrigation  months 
is  about  4500  second-feet  measured  at  Red  Bluff,  which  is  the  accepted  point  of 
measurement  in  this  connection.  In  1924  the  lowest  flow  at  this  point  was  2800 
second-feet,  which  constitutes  the  irrigation  supply  for  the  valley  and  the  delta 
regions  below,  since  in  a  dry  year  the  tributaries  contribute  practically  no  water  at 
the  critical  seasons.  While  the  Feather,  Yuba  and  American  rivers  are  first 
magnitude  streams  with  large  annual  inin-offs,  they  are  not  spring-fed,  such  as  the 
upper  Sacramento,  and  their  low  flow  amounts  to  only  a  few  hundred  second-feet, 
which  is  entirely  diverted  in  critical  seasons  by  agricultural  interests  along  those 
streams. 

With  the  figures  in  mind  that  the  normal  low  flow  of  the  Sacramento  is  4500 
second-feet  and  the  extreme  low  flow  2800,  the  existing  rights  to  divert  from  the 
river  below  Red  Bluff  and  above  Sacramento  are  somewhat  as  follows : 

The  Division  of  Water  Rights  has  issued  permits  for  about  4800  second-feet.  Unap- 
proved applications  are  approximately  2000  second-feet  more.  These  figures  do  not 
indicate  the  actual  amount  of  water  which  will  bo  diverted,  since  each  permit  includes 
some  unirrigable  land  or  some  portion  of  its  land  must  lie  fallow  each  year,  or 
perhaps  some  portion  of  the  right  will  be  forfeited  through  nonuse.  From  the 
records  of  use  of  water  on  these  projects  at  present  on  file  at  the  division  an  estimate 
is  made  that  tlie  applications  and  permits  now  before  the  ofiice  will  ultimately  be 
issued  licenses  or  final  water  rights,  to  about  3G00  second-feet. 

From  records  of  water  pumped  and  such  other  information  as  is  available,  it 
is  estimated  that  about  2000  second-feet  should  be  allowed  for  the  total  of  other 
used  rights,  botli  appropriative  and  riparian,  on  the  river,  making  a  total  of  about 
5600  second-feet  of  actual  existing  rights  by  use,  or  which  may  be  secured  under 
applications  now  pending. 

There  are  in  addition  large  areas  of  riparian  land  along  the  river  which  have  not 
as  yet  used  water  and  if  section  11  of  the  Water  Commission  Act  regarding  riparian 
rights  is  overruled  by  the  courts,  possibly  2000  second-feet  more  would  be  ultimately 
demanded  by  these  lands,  making  a  total  of  around  7500  second-feet.  Adding  up  the 
total  claims  on  the  river,  without  reducing  them  in  accordanc-e  with  actual  use, 
brings  up  the  total  to  over  10,000  second-feet. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  171 

Assuming  the  rights  by  use  to  be  about  5600  second-feet,  and  with  only  2800 
second-fcct  available  at  Kt'd  P.lnlV  this  year,  the  natural  quostion  is.  how  do  these 
lands  get  sufficient  water?  The  answer  is  that  not  all  holders  of  water  i-ights 
exercise  them,  there  is  a  very  considerable  return  flow,  and  very  strict  consei'vation 
measures  were  adojited.  as  it  was  aDparent  as  early  as  January,  10'_*4,  that  the 
situation  was  v(M-y  serious  and  a  water  eonference  was  held  at  that  time.  As  a 
result  of  this  the  Division  of  Water  Rights  was  asked  to  appoint  a  water  supervisor 
for  the  season  of  1924  and  as  I  will  explain  further  on,  this  work  has  had  a  high 
degree  of  success. 

Summarizing  the  figures  nuoted  you  will  note  that  there  are  rights  by  use  to  the 
waters  of  the  river  to  an  estimated  figure  of  5600  second-feet,  which  is  just  double 
the  1924  low  flow  of  2800  second-feet;  therefore,  considering  only  in-igation  above 
Sacramento,  it  would  seem  the  supply  is  fully  appropriated  and  that  new  projects 
will  be  forced  to  store  winter  waters. 

However,  irrigation  i.n  tlie  Sacramento  Valley  above  Sacramento  is  only  one  angle 
and  these  irrigation  projects  only  one  of  the  interests  having  a  claim  upon  the  river. 
An  equally  important  claim  comes  from  the  delta  region  below  Sacramento.  This 
area  is  little  known  in  spite  of  its  vast  importance  to  the  State  of  California.  The 
Sacramento-San  Joaquin  delta  contains  390,000  acres  of  highly  productive  lands 
requiring  irrigation,  and  is  estimated  to  produce  annually  crops  valued  at  between 
$50,000,000  and  $70,000,000.  The  delta  farmers  secure  their  water  supply  from  either 
the  Sacramento  or  the  San  Joaquin  River  or  from  the  many  sloughs  which  traverse 
the  region  and  connect  the  two  rivers. 

During  the  irrigation  season  their  supply  mainly  comes  from  the  Sacramento  and 
penetrates  through  the  sloughs  into  the  San  Joaquin  delta  as  well,  since  the  low  flow 
of  the  San  Joaquin  River  is  comparati\ely  small,  around  400  second-feet.  The 
elevation  of  the  delta  lands  is  just  about  sea  level  and  the  Avater  channels  are,  of 
course,  many  feet  below  sea  level ;  therefore  they  may  be  considered  arms  of  San 
Francisco  Bay  and  the  only  reason  why  the  salt  water  does  not  come  up  into  the 
delta  is  that  the  fresh  water  from  the  two  rivers  keeps  it  out.  As  the  fresh  water 
supply  diminishes  in  the  summer  the  salt  water  creeps  farther  and  farther  into  the 
delta  region.  This  situation  has  been  getting  worse  year  by  year,  due  to  a  variety 
of  causes,  but  principally  due  to  the  depletion  of  the  summer  flow  of  the  Sacramento 
River  by  irrigation  diversions.  The  delta  landowners  claim  water  rights  both  by 
riparian  rights  and  appropriation  and  also  claim  the  right  to  have  enough  water  in 
the  river  to  keep  the  salinity  condition  below  the  danger  point,  and  have  stated  that 
for  this  purpose  it  is  necessary  that  3500  second-feet  be  allowed  to  pass  Sacramento. 
You  will  note  that  this  is  considerably  more  water  than  there  was  available  in  the 
river  above  diversions  during  the  past  summer. 

The  salinity  situation  is  alarming  and  of  the  greatest  importance.  Residents  of 
Sacramento  are  probably  not  aware  that  salinity  to  the  extent  of  25  parts  per 
100,000  appeared  at  Freeport,  10  miles  below  Sacramento,  and  that  if  no  conserva- 
tion measures  had  been  taken  this  year  it  is  probable  that  the  Sacramento  domestic 
supply  would  have  been  contaminated  by  salt  from  the  ocean. 

A  number  of  solutions  have  been  suggested  for  the  salinity  problem.  At  the 
present  time  investigation  is  under  way  to  determine  whether  or  not  a  dam  across 
the  bay  itself  at  Carquinez  Straits  or  at  some  other  point  is  feasible.  Very  large 
storage  of  winter  waters  in  order  to  supply  this  necessary  water  to  the  delta  region 
is  also  under  consideration. 

A  third  important  interest  on  the  river  is  the  navigation  interests  represented  by 
the  United  States  Government  tlirough  the  Army  Engineer's  office.  Navigation  on 
the  river  below  Sacramento  is  at  the  i>resent  time  of  great  importance  and  is  of 
some  importance  above  Sacramento,  although  in  low  seasons  like  1920  and  1924 
navigation  has  been  abandoned  above  this  city.  However,  it  is  admitted  that  the 
United  States  Government  has  the  paramount  riglit  in  the  waters  of  a  stream  in 
the  interests  of  navigation  and  could  force,  if  it  so  chose,  upper  diverters  to  release 
enough  water  for  the  puri)Oses  of  navigation.  Major  U.  S.  Grant,  the  engineer 
officer  in  charge  of  this  district,  has  stated  that  from  3000  to  3500  second-feet  in  the 
river  above  Sacramento  would  satisfy  navigation  requirements. 

Thus  we  have  three  interests,  each  of  which  apiiareully  needs  all  the  water  in  the 
Sacramento  River  in  the  summer  time  during  a  low  season.  The  interests  of  the 
delta  region  and  navigation  would  seem  to  be  somewhat  the  same ;  that  is,  if  the 
United  States  Government  should  require  3000  or  3500  second-feet  for  navigation 
purposes  this  would  supply  the  delta  with  all  the  water  which  they  state  they 
need.     *     *     * 


172  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA, 

KXHIBIT  0. 

EXTRACTS  FROM  BULLETIN  NO.  4. 

PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  SECOND  SACRAMENTO-SAN  JOAQUIN  RIVER 
PROBLEMS  CONFERENCE  AND  WATER  SUPERVISOR'S  REPORT, 
1024. 

Colusa  trough  return  waters. 

A.s  a  result  of  tlio  maintenance  of  the  gaginj;  station  on  the  Colusa  tr<)u;,'li  at  the 
Colusa-Williams  highwaj',  some  interesting  information  on  return  water  and  its 
relation  to  diversion  was  obtained  for  an  area  of  about  66,000  acres  irrigated  on 
the  west  side  of  the  Sacramento  River  between  Hamilton  City  and  Colusa.  The 
irrigation  in  this  area  was  divided  nearly  e(|ually  between  rice  and  general  crops  or 
pasture.  The  Colusa  trough  at  the  point  of  measurement  is  the  main  drain  of 
Reclamation  District  2047  and  as  such  carries  practically  the  entire  drainage  from 
the  Glenn-Colusa.  Jacinto-Provident,  Princeton-Codora-Glenn,  Compton-Delevan  and 
Maxwell  irrigation  districts.  Also  at  the  point  of  measurement  there  is  very  little 
drainage,  other  tiian  that  from  these  districts,  flowing.  Table  27  gives  the  data 
obtained.  It  shows  the  diversions  and  return  water  for  each  month.  June  to 
October,  inclusive,  and  for  the  entire  iieriod.  the  percentage  which  the  return  beare 
to  the  diversions,  and  the  acreages  irrigated.  It  is  to  be  notetl  that  the  Compton- 
Delevan  and  Maxwell  irrigation  districts  have  pumping  plants  on  the  trough  which 
l»ick  up  this  return  water  and  again  use  it  for  irrigation.  The  drainage  from  this 
hittcn"  irrigation  returns  to  the  trough  above  the  point  of  measurement.  For  this 
reason,  in  computing  the  return  flow  in  per  cent  of  divei-sions,  it  is  necessary  to 
add  the  trough  diversions  to  the  measured  return  at  the  Colusa-Williams  highway. 
As  shown  in  the  table,  the  rcliirn  flow  for  Ihe  ])('riod  .Tune  to  October  was  .30  per 
cent  of  the  diversions. 


DEVEIiOPMENT  OP  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


173 


c/5 


^  ^      ^           (-^ 

'O 

, 

^ 

, 

c:  c2       ^           O 

CO 

•^ 

o 

"?_^o      oo          o 

■*- 

c- 

t> 

»-»-'                 -^' 

o' 

a^-O 

5 

CO 

W  <u 

<1 

— 

C-l  lO       to            o 

o 

CI 

« 

O  C^l        00               CJ 

CI 

CO 

f 

CO  Oi       t-_              ^ 

°°- 

o> 

c: 

'O'cO         CO 

-t"" 

«i> 

c» 

CO 

a 

^ ^__^ 

. 

OOOS        ■*        -^        (O 

«-t      oo 

o 

0'*t<        ^ 

CO 

oo      oo              o 

CO        ^ 

CO 

CIOO    1    o    II 

»oc^ 

o 

CI 

co  II                  1 

^ 

**^* 

^ 

O    <L> 

■*-»    > 

u 

CJ.S 

o  s 

3"i 

^^ 

.     o 

g 

O-^        CO       o        o 

o      oo 

00 

oc 

O        00              " 

C;  .^4 

O  OO        CO         »o         — < 

o      o 

r- 

OO' 

-1     s 

3 

^'*-      -^^      ^      o\ 
t-TcT     »o"     ^      o* 

CO       ■<»* 

CO 

cf 

OOC 
<0  u 

•-3 

t^ 

OOCO       C4                   c-i 

I— 1 

COC 

N|          0» 

CJ 

»— « 

CO 

<r: 

•t'C'^        1*        o        o 

-^         CO 

»o 

coe 

o       t 

D 

tfi 

OC  1-H            ifH 

CI                 T-H 

■t* 

CH- 

-1     e 

o 

^H 

<«~^ 

(-• 

Cb 

o 

^ 

I? 

O 

^ 

S 

1 

O****        CO       CO       ^ 

O         CO 

Oi 

OC 

o      e 

o            => 

ooo       ■* 

1^       o 

ooc 

5        C 

o 

<M_r^      00 

c^       oo 

c^ 

>f3Q 

0      e 

o 

tei 

^ 

CO 

t— * 

0 

d 

< 

O  O        CO        CO        iM 

o       ^ 

CI 

>oc 

O        0 

0 

COOO           CO                          -rr 

CO         rH 

CO 

•^  u 

1      c 

tn 

-rf  r-l 

1-- 

CI 

c 

>{ 

»-< 

t-J 

o 

_o 

o 

• 

6? 

Ci 

D. 

ooo      r^      o 

O        lO 

CI 

Oi 

^        u 

:,           " 

.5^ 

OO        -^         lO         ^H 

t^           iQ 

CO 

Oci 

5        C( 

3 

U2 

CO  t^            05            T-l           »0 

r-       CO 

cc 

«3  ^ 

-      I- 

<u 

lO'o"        CO                     <M*" 

^ 

•  ri" 

Tf"ci 

0       r 

J" 

<M  .-t 

-^ 

H 

-^  CO         <N         CO         CO 

•^         CO 

^_, 

.-.a 

b        C 

5 

oa>      05               00 

<M        C^ 

CO 

coc 

5        ^ 

t* 

m 

I^  (M 

CJ^ 

CJ  - 

H            C» 

:i 

«H-.' 

1-H 

w 

ci 

=3 

=3 

5§ 

oo 

-ii 

-t^ 

o  o      o      o      o 

o      o 

o 

OC 

>      c 

>                C4 

a> 

O  O         »0         O         CIS 

i^       cq 

CO 

Ot= 

H 

CO  CI         CO        -t*         O 

rj<^       CO^ 

l>*^ 

C^l> 

c 

•)_ 

■v 

OJ 

COOO          ITD                          lO 

f-T    1— r 

ui" 

-^'cl 

5"        C 

? 

l-> 

■^   1-H 

I^ 

c 

1 

o 

<« 

ooo      r-      W3       OO 

1-H            1-H 

o 

loa 

i      ■'I 

■* 

r^  (M       d                o 

CO       c^ 

00 

o^ 

4         C^ 

1 

to 

00  CO         1-t 

■*- 

Cl- 

*       c^ 

5 

l*^ 

^ 

ti 

:3 

&? 

»-^ 

<t^ 

oo      ooo 

o      o 

o 

oc 

,      ^ 

>      <=•' 

OJ 

OO        oo        r-t        Oi 

^H         oo 

o 

oc 

> 

iCi  CM         t--         CO         O 

o_       Cl_ 

o 

coc^ 

<ij 

CO'  O         t-^                       CO 

«-h"        »— T 

^ 

w't^ 

e 

it. 

lOOJ 

o 

r-  ci      ^H      »o      i-i 

o       oo 

^ 

ooc 

oc 

OCVI         (M                       .-< 

»o        --" 

■^ 

o  c 

c^ 

to 

cr.  CO       •-<                  1F-I 

iq 

co- 

•^ 

t— ' 

t-J 

cj 

t^ 

3 

00 

■-s 

■«-a 

O  O        O       t^        o 

o      o 

1^ 

oc 

c 

CI 

a» 

OO      c^       ^-       o 

1^       »o 

o 

o^ 

3 

^ 

O^CO        Ol^       CI         »o 

o      o 

t^_ 

0>  cc 

1- 

-f'aT     t-*               CO 

cf       »-<' 

t'.-t^ 

>0 

IC  •-< 

o 

w 

o 

^ 

i 

o    * 

a   : 

o 

a 
a 

5  :-S„  :.a  :a 

Q 

.2 

Q 

1"^ 

fe  «  2  ^°-^  V  >  <u  c 

0.1 

i 

:5 

o 

3 

o 
''/I 

> 

c 
u 

e. 

ii 

9g||g2-££-S? 

cs^  g-i  CI.  m  a  2  is 

1- 

—  i 

o 

f 
c 

3    « 

<1>  ^  ^ 

H 

D       i- 

« 

K 

Si 

o     t- 

-a 
c 
o 


is 
3 


—  .sa 


]74 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


Quality  of  return  water — tests. 

J>iscussi(Hi  has  been  had  relative  (i>  the  fitness  f(ir  irrigation  ot  some  return 
waters,  especially  those  from  (he  riee  fields  l«)(ated  in  more  or  less  .-ilkali  area. 
In  order  to  obtain  some  idea,  tlw-refore,  of  the  ditferenee  in  salts  and  alkali  content 
between  the  Saeramento  Kiver  water  and  that  in  the  Colusa  trough,  a  few  samples 
of  water  were  t.-iken  and  tested  during  the  V.)24  season.  I'lie  lestinj;  was  done  by 
the  chemical  laboratory  of  the  State  Highway  Commission. 

On  July  30th  a  sample  was  taken  of  the  Colusa  trough  water  at  the  Maxwell 
road,  and  at  the  same  time  one  was  taken  from  the  adjacent  Maxwell  Irrigation 
District  canal  carrying  water  diverted  from  the  Sacramento  River  at  the  pumping 
plant,  about  seven  miles  distant.  The  results  of  the  tests  of  these  two  samples  are 
given  in  Table  28. 


I 


TABLE  28.  TESTS  OF  WATER  SAMPLE  FROM  THE  COLUSA  TROUGH 
AND  FROM  CANAL  WATER  DIVERTED  FROM  THE  SACRAMENTO 
RIVER. 


Tests 

Parts  per  million 

Return  water  in 
Colusa  trough 

Canal  water  from 
Sacramento  River 

Alkaliiiitv  bicarbonatcs 

207.00 

000.00 

104.00 

0.50 

05.00 

40.00 

24.00 

good 

121  00 

Alkalinity  carbonates . .         

000  00 

Total  hardness 

150  00 

Sulphates  as  S0« 

1.50 

Chlorides  as  CI 

05.00 

.\lkali  as  Na 

10  00 

Alkali  coefficient* 

107.00 

Alkali  rating      ,  , . 

good 

*Alkali  coefficient  is  the  depth  in  inches  of  water  which  on  evapcration  would  yield  sufficient  alkali  to  render  a  four- 
foot  depth  of  soil  injurious  to  the  most  sensitive  crops. 

Note. — Samples  taken  on  July  30,  1924.  at  the  Colusa  trough  and  Maxwell  Irrigation  District  canal  crossing  of  the 
Maxwell  road. 

It  will  be  noted  that,  although  the  trough  water  had  an  alkali  coefficient  about 
four  and  a  half  times  lower  (see  definition  for  this  coefficient  at  bottom  of  Table 
28)  than  the  canal  water  from  the  river,  both  samples  were  given  an  alkali  rating 
as  "Good." 

Early  in  the  fall  the  rice  fields  are  drained  of  all  of  the  water  which  has  been 
ponded  during  the  summer,  and  at  this  time,  therefoi-e,  there  is  a  considerable 
increase  in  the  return  to  the  Sacramento  River  of  such  water.  To  show  the  differ- 
ence in  the  alkali  content  of  the  river  water  before  and  at  the  peak  of  this  fall 
drainage  samples  were  taken  from  the  river  at  Elkhorn  Ferry,  about  12  miles  above 
Sacramento,  one  on  August  18th  and  the  other  on  September  12th.  On  September 
12th,  also,  a  sample  was  taken  from  the  back  borrow-pit  of  District  787,  just 
above  its  junction  with  the  river.  The  borrow-pit  was  carrying  aU  of  the  drainage 
from  Colusa  Basin.  The  results  of  the  tests  of  these  three  samples  are  given  in 
Table  29. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


175 


TABLE  29.  TESTS  OF  SACRAMENTO  RIVER  WATER  BEFORE  AND  AT 
THE  PEAK  OF  THE  RICE  FIELD  DRAINAGE  AND  OF  COLUSA  BASIN 
DRAINAGE  AT  THE  PEAK. 


Parts  per  millinii 

Tests 

River  water 

at  Elkhorn 

ferry  on 

August  18 

River  water 

at  Elkhorn 

ferry  on 

September  12 

Colusa  basiu 

drainage  at 

Knights  Landing 

ou  September  12 

Totalsolids 

333 

10 

323 

158 

210 

130 

80 

64 

47 

32 

good 

31G 

37 

2!)7 

134 

198 

117 

81 

60 

27 

34 

good 

582 

Suspended  solids      

73 

500 

260 

Total  hardness 

213 

Temporary  liardnessv    

85 

298 

Chlorine  as  CI 

82 

Sulphates  as  SO*   .          

95 

Alkali  coefficient    

24 

Alkali  rating 

good 

Note. — Elkhorn  ferry  is  located  about  12  miles  above  Sacramento.  The  sample  of  Colusa  basin  drainage  water 
was  taken  from  the  back  borrow-pit  of  District  787  just  above  its  junction  with  the  Sacramento  River  at  Knights  Land- 
ing, which  is  located  about  34  miles  above  Sacramento. 


Of  the  flow  at  Elkhorn  Ferry  on  Angnst  IS,  the  return  fmni  District  70  drain. 
District  108  drain,  Colnsa  Basin  and  Sacramento  Sh)ugh  amounted  to  44  per  cent. 
On  September  12  the  return  from  these  same  channels,  although  greater,  was  only 
24  per  cent  of  the  flow  at  Elkhorn  Ferry,  because  of  the  increased  river  flow  due 
to  decreased  draft. 

Unfortunately  for  the  value  of  the  comparison,  the  return  from  District  70  drain. 
District  108  drain,  Colusa  Basin  and  Sacramento  Slough  (representing  i)rac1i(ally 
the  total  of  return  water  similar  to  Colusa  Basin  water)  ou  August  18th  amounted 
to  44  per  cent  of  the  river  flow  at  Elkhorn  Ferry,  whereas  ou  September  12th  the 
return  from  these  same  channels,  although  greater  in  amount,  was  only  24  per  cent 
of  the  Elkhorn  Ferry  flow  because  of  the  increased  river  flow  due  to  reduction  in 
divei-sions.  This  may  account  for  the  fact  that  the  September  12th  test  appears 
to  differ  very  little  from  the  August  18th  test,  although  a  large  quantity  of  return 
water  of  considerable  hardness  and  low  alkali  coefficient,  as  shown  by  the  September 
12th  Colusa  Basin  drainage  test,  was  entering  the  river. 

No  comprehensive  conclusions  can  be  drawn  from  the  few  tests  that  have  been 
made,  but  it  was  desired  to  record  the  little  information  that  has  been  obtained  in 
this  connection. 


176  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


IRON  CANYON   PROJECT— CALIFORN  I  A. 

PRELIMINARY  ESTIMATES. 

1.  Iron  Canyon  Reservoir  Right  of  Way. 

2.  Iron  Canyon  Dam,   Bend  Embankment  and  Power   Plant — Construction. 

3.  Iron  Canyon  Dam  and  Power  Plant — Operation  and  Maintenance. 

4.  Diversion  Worlts — Construction. 

5.  Diversion  Works — Operation  and  Maintenance. 

6.  Diversion  Works — Construction^ — Alternative   Plan. 

7.  Diversion  Works — Construction — Alternative   Plan. 

8.  Mooney  Island  Power  Plant — Construction. 

9.  Mooney  Island  Power  Plant — Operation  and   Maintenance. 

10.  Main  Canal — Construction. 

11.  Red  Bank   Pump   Canal — Construction. 

12.  Pumping  Plants — Construction. 

13.  Pumping  Plants — Operation  and  Maintenance. 

14.  East  Side  Canal — Construction. 

15.  Project  Headquarters — Construction. 

16.  Iron   Canyon    Dam — Construction — Increased   cost   to   raise   water   surface    from 
elevation  392.5  to  400. 

17.  Iron    Canyon    Dam — Construction — Increased    cost    to    raise    water   surface    from 
elevation  392.5  to  405.5. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


177 


PRELIMINARY  ESTIMATE  No.  1. 
Iron  Canyon  Project     California. 

IRON  CANYON  RESERVOIR  RIGHT  OF  WAY. 

Estimated  valuation  of  lands  and  improvements. 

Flow  line  at  elevation  405.5. 

Estimate  by  California  State  Department  of  Public  Works, 

Division  of  Engineering  and  Irrigation,  except  as  noted. 

Lands.  Summary 

Irrigated  and  cultivated,  14,100  acres  at  $106  per  acre $2,763,600 

Grazing,   17,500  acres  at  $25  per  acre 437,500 

Marginal    between    Elevation    405.5-410.5,    added    to    estimate, 

4400  acres  at  $25  per  acre 110,000 

$3,311,100 

Anderson-Cottonwood  Irrigation  District. 

(Bond   issue   $1,255,000   le.ss   $15,000   paid   in    1925.) 

One-third  of   irrigable   area   submerged   .ind   this   proportion    of 

bonded   indebtedness  charged  against  Iron   Canyon  project $413,333 

Capitalization   of  increased  maintenance   costs 375,000 

788,333 

Railroads. 

Anderson-Belle   Vista    Railroad    relocation — 

10    miles   at    $15,000    per    mile $150,000 

Sacramento    River    bridge 50,000 

Churn  Creek  bridge 30,000 

$230,000 

Southern    Pacific    Railroad — 

Present   location    not   changed. 

Fill    at    Cottonwood    Creek    to    be    increased    and 

bridge   raised   and  extended $75,000  75,000 

305,000 

Roads. 

State    highway- 
Relocation  of  two  miles  at  $23,000  per  mile $46,000 

Cottonwood   Creek    bridge 50,000         $96,000 

Balls  Ferry  steel   bridge 50,000 

146.000 

Transmission   and   telephoiie  liiies. 

Pacific   Gas    and    Electric    Company    power    lines — Relocation 

17  miles  at  $20,000  a  mile $340,000 

Telephone  lines — Relocate  7  miles  at  $1,000  a  mile 7,000         347,000 

Total  estimated  cost $4,897,433 

Roughly    4,897,500 

PRELIMINARY  ESTIMATE  No.  2. 

Iron  Canyon  Project — California. 

IRON  CANYON  DAM,  BEND  EMBANKMENT  AND  POWER  PLANT. 

SUMMARY    OF   CONSTRrCTION   COSTS. 

Details  of  estimate  not  printed  to  save  space.    These  are  on  file  at  ofiSce  of  Division  of  Engineering  and  Irrigation 
and  may  be  consuhed  there. 


Estimated  cost 

Item 

Field 

Total 

1530,000 

3.191.678 

5.586.305 

4.180,780 

713,595 

85.500 

*37,500 

6,000 

810,920 

195.000 

250.000 

64,000 

60,000 

$670,450 

4.037,473 

Power  house  section                                                                                

7.066,675 

Flood  control  section                                                                   

5.288,687 

902.698 

108.157 

47,437 

7.590 

Bend  embankment                                                                                      

1.025.814 

Construction  railroad  and  eQuipment                                         

246.075 

316,250 

Permanent  camp                                                                                

80.960 

Finishing  and  cleaning  up 

75,900 

Total  exclusive  of  right  of  way                                                     

$15,711,278 

$19,874,760 

Roughly 

Does  not  include  interest  during  construction. 
12—50667 


$19,875,000 


178  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

PRELIMINARY  ESTIMATE  No.  3. 
Iron  Canyon  Project — California. 

IRON  CANYON  DAM  AND  POWER  PLANT. 

OPERATION  AND  MAINTENANCE. 

Rating,  110,000  h.p 100,000  k.v.a. 


Four  turbine  driven  generator  units. 
Turbines,  30,000  h.p Generators 


25,000  k.v.a 


Item 


Storage  Dam. 

Operation  and  maintenance: 
It  is  assumed  that  the  dam  will  be  operated  and  maintained  by  the 
force  that  operates  the  power  plant,  and  all  charges  for  this  pur- 
pose are  included  below  under  that  feature. 
Depreciation: 
Flood  control  gates  and  hand  rail  (including  engineering  and  ad- 
ministration, 10%;  and  contingencies,  15%) 


Total  depreciation  on  gates  and  hand  rail  

Remainder  of  dam  not  already  depreciated  under  power  house  and 
flood  control  gates  (including  engineering  and  administration, 
10%;  and  contingencies,  15%) 


Total  depreciation  on  remainder  of  dam 

The  last  item  is  based  on  the  assumption  that  the  dam  and 
reservoir  will  be  useless  after  100  years  for  reasons  that 
can  not  be  foreseen.  The  charge  is  not  assumed 
assessed  against  the  project  during  the  repayment  period 
as  explained  in  the  text. 

Power  Plant. 

Operation  and  maintenance: 
Kngineering  and  administration 


Operation: 
Superintendent,  44%  of  time. 

Operators 

.\ssistant  operators 

Supplies,  25%  of  labor 


Total  operation. 


Maintenance: 
Superintendent,  44%  of  time. 

Electrician 

Helper 

Machinist 

Helper 

Laborers 

Supplies 


Total  maintenance. 
General  expense 


Total  operation  and  maintenance 

Depreciation: 
Power  house  and  equipment  (including  engineering  and  administra- 
tion, 10%;  and  contingencies,  15%) 

Gates  (including  engineering  and  administration,  10%;  and  con- 
tingencies, 15%) 

Trash  rack  (including  engineering  and  administration,  10%;  and 
contingencies,  15%) 


Total  depreciation 

Total  annual  plant  charge. 


Quantity 


$1,518,380 


13,248,300 


107c 


$4,934,765 

106,260 

67,298 


Unit  cost 


4% 


?3,600 
2,100 
1,800 


S3,600 
2,400 
1,800 
2,400 
1,800 
1,500 


4% 

m7c 

6H% 


Total  cost 


$60,735 


132.483 


$6,000 


$1,584 
6,300 
5,400 
3,321 


$16,605 


$1,584 
2.400 
1,800 
2,400 
1,800 
4,500 

14,484 


$28,968 
5,157 


$197,390 
6,900 
4,370 


Summary 


S60,735 


132,483 


$56,730 


208,660 


$265,390 


I 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RH^R. 


179 


PRELIMINARY  ESTIMATE  No.  4. 
Iron  Canyon  Project     California. 
DIVERSION  WORKS. 
Raise  in  water  surface  15  feet.    Power  developed  at  Mooiicy  Islund  Slough. 

S1TMMARY    OF  CONSTRl'CTION   COSTS. 

Details  of  estimate  not  printed  to  save  space.    These  are  on  file  at  office  of  Division  of  Engineering  and  Irrigation 
iiriil  niav  l)o  consulted  tliero. 


Item 

Estima 

ted  cost 

Field 

Total 

S25.000 

655,460 

190,202 

79.999 

86..500 

25,000 

25.000 

12.500 

5.000 

8,000 

$31,625 

Dam  across  river  channel               

829  157 

Sliiicewav         

240,605 

101,199 

109,422 

Railroad  spur                

:51,625 

( 'onstruction  camp      

.31,625 

15,813 

6,325 

Right  of  way           .           

10,120 

_ . 

Totals 

?1,1 12,661 

SI  407  516 

Roughly 

Does  not  include  interest  during  construction. 


11,410,000 


PRELIMINARY  ESTIMATE  No.  5. 
Iron  Canyon  Project — California. 

DIVERSION  WORKS. 

OPERATION   AND   MAINTENANCE. 

Elevation  of  water  surface  in  canal 250  feet 

Diversion,  including  irrigation  water  for  project  and  water  for  development  of  power  at  Mooney  Island 
power  plant,  approximately 6,500  second-feet 


Item 


Quantity 


Unit  cost 


Total  cost 


Summary 


Operation  and  maintenance: 

Included  as  a  part  of  tlie  project  operation  and  maintenance  charge 
No  charge  nude  against  power  as  there  are  no  additional  expenses 
at  the  diversion  dam  as  a  result  of  power  development  at  Mooney 
Island  power  plant. 
Depreciation — niet-.tl  work: 

Charged  against  power  since  the  cost  of  the  diversion  dam  is  assumed 
to  be  paid  through  sale  of  power. 

Roller  crest  gates  and  hoists  (including  engineering  and  administra- 
tion, lO'/t,;  and  contingencies,  15%) 

Foot  bridge  (including  engineering  and  administration,  10%;  and  con- 
tingencies, 15%) 

Radial  gates  and  hoists  (including  engineering  and  administration, 
10%;  and  contingencies,  15%) 


$429,291 
26,.565 
27,704 


4% 

4% 

6?i% 


$17,172 
1.063 
1,847 


Total  annual  depreciation  on  metal  work 

Charge  to  Mooney  Island  power  plant  one-half  of  depreciation  on 
radial  gates 


$20,082 


Net  annual  depreciation  on  metal  work  chargeable  to  diversion 
dam 


Depreciation — concrete: 
No  depreciation  charged  against  concrete  work  during  the  period  of 

repayment  of  construction  cost. 
•Total  cost  of  diversion  works  less  metal  work,  earth  dike  and  right  of 
way 


$806,898 


2% 


$16,138 


Total  depreciation  on  concrete  in  diversion  dam. 


$20,100 
900 


$19,200 


$16,100 


$16,100 


*Cost  of  cofferdams,  excavation,  sheet  piling,  rip-rap,  etc,  assumed  to  be  distributed  against  concrete. 


180 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


PRELIMINARY  ESTIMATE  No.  6. 

Iron  Canyon  Project — California. 

DIVERSION  WORKS. 

Raise  in  water  surface,  15  feet. 
No  power  development  at  Mooney  Island  Slough. 

SUMMARY  OP  CONSTRUCTION  COSTS. 


Details  of  estimate  not  printed  to  save  space, 
and  niav  be  consulted  there. 


These  are  on  file  at  office  of  Division  of  Engineering  and  Irrigation 


Item 


Estimated  cost 


Field 


Total 


Cofferdams 

Dam  across  river  channel . 

Sluiceway 

Canal  intake 

Earth  dike 

Railroad  spur 

Construction  camp 

Permanent  improvements. 
Finishing  and  cleaning  up. 
Right  of  way 


$25,000 

655,460 

175.381 

44,062 

86,500 

25,000 

25,000 

4,500 

5,000 

8,000 


Totals. 


$1,053,903 


$31,625 
829,157 
221,857 

55,738 
109,422 

31.625 

31,625 
5,692 
6.325 

10,120 


$1,333,180 


Roughly 

Docs  not  include  interest  during  construction. 


$1,333,000 


PRELIMINARY  ESTIMATE  No.  7. 

Iron  Canyon  Project — California. 

DIVERSION  V\/ORKS. 

No  raise  in  water  surface. 
No  power  development  at  Mooney  Island  Slough. 

SUMMARY   OF  CONSTRUCTION  COSTS. 

Details  of  estimate  not  printed  to  save  space.    These  are  on  file  at  office  of  Division  of  Engineering  and  Irrigation 
and  may  be  consulted  there. 


Item 

Estima 

ted  cost 

Field 

Total 

Cofferdams                                                                                       

$25,000 

199.008 

132,807 

100,000 

5,000 

25,000 

4,500 

5.000 

2,000 

$31,625 

Low  weir  across  river  channel        

251,74(1 

Sluiceway 

168,002 

("anal  intake 

126,500 

Railroad  siding      

6,325 

( 'onstruction  camp 

31,625 

Permanent  improvements 

5,692 

Finishing  and  cleaning  up 

6,325 

Right  of  way 

2,530 

Totals 

$498,315 

$630,370 

Roughly 

Does  not  include  interest  during  construction. 


$630,000 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


181 


PRELIMINARY  ESTIMATE  No.  8. 
Iron  Canyon  Project — California. 

MOONEY  ISLAND  POWER  PLANT. 

SUMMART  OF  CONSTRUCTION  COSTS. 

Details  of  estimate  not  printed  to  save  space.     These  are  on  file  at  office  of  Division  of  Engineering  and  Irrigation 

and  mav  be  consulted  there. 


Estimated  cost 


Item 


Forebay  and  tailrace 

Power  house  and  equipment. 

t'onstruction  camp 

Permanent  improvements.  . . 
Finishing  and  cleaning  up.  . . 
Right  of  way 


Totals. 


$114,862 

789.360 

3,162 

1.5,813 

1,265 

3,795 


$928,257 


Roughly 

Does  not  include  interest  during  construction. 


$928,000 


PRELIMINARY  ESTIMATE  No.  9. 
Iron  Canyon  Project — California. 

MOONEY  ISLAND  POWER  PLANT. 

OPERATION  A.ND    MAINTENANCE. 

Installed  capacity,  10,400  h.p. 


Item 

Quantity 

Unit  cost 

Total  cost 

Summary 

Operation  and  maintenance: 
Operation — 
Labor — Superintendent 

1  (6%  time) 

3 

25%  of  labor 

$3,600 
2,100 

$216 
6,300 
1,629 

Operators 

Supplies 

Total  operation 

$8,145 

$216 
1,500 

Maintenance — 
Labor — Superintendent 

1  (6%  time) 
1 

$3,600 
1,500 

Laborer 

Total  labor 

$1,716 
1,716 

Supplies  

100%  labor 

Total  maintenance 

$3,432 

Total  estimated  field  cost 

$11,577 

$11,500 

General  expense 

10% 

1,150 

Total  annual  operation  and  maintenance  

$12,650 

Depreciation: 
Concrete  and  paying  (including  engineering  and  administration, 
10%;  and  contingencies   15%)   ...         .             

S29.750 

21,632 

789,360 

2% 
4% 

$595 

1,442 

31,574 

Structural  steel  (including  engineering  and  administration,  10%; 
and  contingencies,  15%) 

Power  house  and  equipment  (including  engineering  and  administra- 
tion, 10%;  and  contingencies,  15%)  

33,600 

$46,250 

Assumol  depreciation  on  radial  gates  and  hoists  at  diversion  works 
(one-half  that  shown  in  Estimate  No  5)                     

900 

Total  annual  olant  charee  assumed  to  be  carried  bv  oower  . 

$47,150 

I 


182 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


PRELIMINARY  ESTIMATE  No.  10. 
Iron  Canyon  Project — California. 

MAIN  CANAL. 

SUMMARY  OP  CONSTRUCTION  COSTS. 

Details  of  cstiniiitc  not  printed  to  save  space.     These  are  on  file  at  office  of  Division  of  Engineering  and  Irrigation 
and  may  be  consulted  there. 


Item 


Excavation  and  borrow . 

Concrete  lining 

Siphons 

Wasteways 

Side  drain  intakes 

Culverts 

(^hecks 

Bridges 

Railroad  crossings 

Turnouts 

Fence 

Telephone  system 

Patrolmen's  quarters .  .  . 
Clearing  and  grubbing.  . 
Right  of  way 


Totals. 


Estimated  cost 


Field 


,986,521 

208,336 

917.299 

335,882 

16,609 

104,.502 

2.50,317 

259,356 

48,873 

39,222 

33,600 

30,720 

28,000 

13,370 

260,875 


Sll,533.482 


Total 


$3,777,950 

7,853,545 

1,160,383 

424,891 

21,010 

132.195 

316,651 

328,085 

61.824 

49,616 

42,504 

38.861 

35,420 

16.913 

330,007 


?14,589,855 


I 


Roughly 

Docs  not  include  interest  during  construction. 


$14,590,000 


PRELIMINARY  ESTIMATE  No.  11. 
Iron  Canyon  Project — California. 

RED  BANK  PUMP  CANAL. 

SUMMARY    OF   COXSTRUCTION   COST. 

Details  of  estimate  not  printed  to  save  space.     These  are  on  file  at  office  of  Di\Tsion  of  Engineering  and  Irrigation 
and  mav  be  consulted  there. 


Item 

Estimated  cost 

Field 

Total 

Excavation 

$83,846 

534,377 

81,288 

5.841 

13.030 

29,700 

20,667 

15,409 

4,861 

7,000 

6,240 

10,500 

2.500 

44,925 

SI 06  065 

Concrete  lining 

675  987 

Siphons 

102,829 

7,389 

16  483 

Wasteways 

Culverts 

Flumes 

37  570 

Checks 

26,144 

19,492 

6,149 

8  855 

Bridges 

Turnouts ' 

Fence 

Telephone  system 

7  894 

Patrolmen's  quarters 

13  283 

Clearing  and  grubbing 

3  162 

Right  of  way 

56,830 

Totals 

$860,184 

$1  088  132 

Roughly 

Does  not  include  interest  during  construction. 


Sl.088,000 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  183 

PRELIMINARY  ESTIMATE  No.  12. 

Iron  Canyon  Project — California. 

PUMPING  PLANTS. 

CONSTRUCTION. 

Basic  (lata: 

Plant  efficiency  assumed 70% 

Discliarge  pipe  lines — 
Wood  stave  pipe  a.ssuraed. 

Allowance  for  water  hammer 50% 

Single  barrel  assumed  in  all  cases. 

('osts  shown  in  the  estimate  are  based  upon  pipe  in  place  including  grading,  cradles  and  fencing. 
The  linear  foot  cost  is  based  upon  the  following  unit  costs: 
Lumber,  measured  in  the  rough — 

Staves,  delivered $4.5.00  per  .M  B.  .M. 

Treatment 20.00  per  M  B.  M. 

Assembling 12.00  per  M  B.  M. 

Dowels.  ..X 1 .00  per  M  B.  M. 

Total  lumber $78.00  per  M  B.  M. 

Metal  work — 

Bands  and  shoes -SO. 04  per  lb. 

Installation  and  painting 01  per  lb. 

Total  metal  work $0.05  per  lb. 


184 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


PRLIMINARY  ESTIMATE  No.   12— Continued. 


Item 


Intake  plant,  head  50  feet: 

Pumping  plant 

Pipe  line,  9.0  feet  diameter . 


Total,  intake  plant. 


'riiiimcs  Creek  plant,  head  37.5  feet: 

Pumping  plant 

Pipe  line,  6.75  feet  diameter 


Total,  Thomes  Creek  plant . 


Plniit  at  Station  1175+00,  head  42  feet: 

Pumping  plant 

Pipe  line  6.0  feet  diameter 


Total,  plant  at  Station  1175+00. 

Plant  at  station  2271+00,  head  35  feet: 

Pumping  plant 

Pipe  line  7.5  feet  diameter 


Total,  plant  at  Station  2271+00. 

Sscond  lift.  Station  2271,  head  34  feet: 

Pumping  plant 

Pipe  line  4.5  feet  diameter 


Total,  second  lift . 


Plant  at  Station  3260,  head  25  feet: 

Pumping  plant 

Pipe  line,  3.5  feet  diameter 


Total,  plant  at  Station  3260. 

Plant  at  Station  4307,  head  25  feet: 

Pumping  plant 

Pipeline,  2.0  feet 


Total,  plant  at  station  4307 


Plant  at  Station  4705,  head  35  feet: 

Pumping  plant 

Pipe  line,  3  feet  diameter 


Total,  plant  at  Station  4705. 


Plant  at  Station  4976,  head  42  feet: 

Pumping  plant 

Pipe  line  6.75  feet  diameter 


Total,  plant  at  Station  4976. 


Total  estimated  field  cost. 
Engineering  and  administration 


Contingencies 

Total  estimated  cost,  pumping  plant.s . 


Quantity 


371  c.  f.  s. 
6,300  ft. 


171  c.  f.  s. 
6,700  ft. 


131  cf.  s. 
1,850  ft. 


206  c.  f.  s. 
8,400  ft. 


51  c.  f.  s. 
5,000  ft. 


35  c.  f.  s. 
1,100  ft. 


8.5  e.  f .  s 

700  ft. 


23  c.  f.  s. 
800  feet 


172  c.  f.  s. 
1,700  feet 


10% 


15% 


Unit  cost 


$315.00 
17.00 


$310.00 
12.00 


$315.00 
10.70 


$310.00 
13.20 


310.00 
7.15 


$295.00 
4.85 


$295.00 
2.90 


$310.00 
4.30 


$315.00 
12.00 


Total  cost 


$116,865 
107,100 


$53,010 
80,400 


$41,265 
19,795 


$63,860 
110,880 


$15,810 
35,750 


$10,325 
5,335 


$2,508 
2,030 


$7,130 
3,440 


$54,180 
20,400 


Summary 


$223,965 


133,410 


61,060 


174,740 


51,560 


15,660 


4,538 


10,570 


74,580 


$750,083 
75,008 


$825,091 
123,764 


$948,855 


Roughly $949,000 

Does  not  include  interest  during  construction. 

Note. — The  first  two  pumping  plants  listed  are  chargeable  to  the  Red  Bank  pump  canal. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


185 


PRELIMINARY  ESTIMATE  No.  13. 
Iron  Canyon  Project — California. 

PUMPING  PLANTS. 

OPERATION  AND   MAINTENANCE. 


Item 

Quantity 

Unit  cost 

Total  cost 

Summary 

Operation  and  maintenance  (except  electric  energy): 
Labor,  materials  and  supplies  (3  times  Minidoka  S.  Side  for 
1923>      

11,792,400  ac.-ft. 

$0.0042 

$49,528 
4,953 

$54,481 

S948,855. 

4% 

$37,954 

$37,954 

Total  annual  plant  charge  (exclusive  of  electric  energy). . . . 

$92,435 

Gross  pumping  area,  Plate  2 94,466  acres 

Area  assessed,  95  per  cent 89,740  acres 

Annual  plant  charge  per  acre  (exclusive  of  electric  energy) $1 .03 

Eed  Bank  pump  unit: 

Gross  area,  Plate  2 39,350  acres 

Area  assessed,  95  per  cent 37,380  acres 

Electric  energy,  9.850,000  k.w.h.  at  $0.01 $98,500.00 

General  expense,  10  per  cent 9,850.00 

Total $108,350.00 


Annual  charge  for  electric  energy  per  acre . 
Annual  plant  charge  per  acre 


$2.90 
1.03 


Total  annual  pumping  charge  per  acre . 


$3.93 


Pump  units  near  Orland: 

Gross  area,  Plate  2 34,800  acres 

Area  assessed,  95  per  cent 33,060  acres 

Electric  energy,  5,660,000  k.w.h.  at  $0.01 $56,600.00 

General  expense,  10  per  cent 5,660.00 

Total  for  electric  energy $62,260.00 


Annual  charge  for  electric  energy  per  acre . 
Annual  plant  charge  per  acre 


$1.88 
1.03 


Total  annual  pumping  charge  per  acre. 


$2.91 


Pump  units  south  of  Willows: 

Gross  area,  Plate  2 20,316  acres 

Area  assessed,  95  per  cent 19,300  acres 

Electric  energy,  3,355,000  k.w.h.  at  $0.01 $33,550.00 

General  expense,  10  per  cent 3,355.00 

Total  for  electric  energy. $36,905.00 


.\nnual  charge  for  electric  energy  per  acre . 
Annual  plant  charge  per  acre 


$1.91 
1.03 


Total  annual  pumping  charge  per  acre . 


$2.94 


186 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


PRELIMINARY  ESTIMATE  No.  14. 
Iron  Canyon  Project — California. 

EAST  SIDE  CANAL. 
Diverting  at  Iron  Canyon  Dam  to  supply  7000  acres  east  of  Red  Bluff. 

StrUJURT   OP   CONSTRUCTION   COSTS. 

Capacity  of  canal  at  its  head,  86  second-feel. 


Item 


Head  works  and  tunnel  at  Iron  Canyon  dam. 

•Excavation  Estate's  cstimatc+ 10^) 

•Concrete  lining  (state's  estimate-t-10%) .... 

Siphons  and  flumes 

Culverts 

Checks 

•Bridges  (state's  estimate) 

Turnouts 

Fence 

Telephone  system 

Patrolmen's  quarters 

Clearing  and  grubbing 

Right  of  way 


Totals. 


Estimated  cost 

Field 

Total 

$10,000 

812.650 

16,000 

20,240 

38,100 

48,197 

15,000 

18,975 

3.000 

3,795 

1,000 

l.L'lM 

4,000 

5,(lti(i 

1.500 

l,8',t7 

4.000 

5,060 

1,000 

1,265 

3,500 

4.4l'S 

500 

632 

8,000 

10.120 

.?105.600 


$133,584 


Roughly $134,000 

Docs  not  include  interest  during  construction. 

•Items  estimated  by  California  State  Department  of  Engineering.  (See  Exhibit  6.)  Excavation  and  concrete  lining 
arc  increased  by  10  per  cent  in  consideration  of  the  increase  in  canal  capacity  from  74  to  86  second-feet. 

.\ll  other  items  are  approximated  upon  the  basis  of  similar  construction  on  the  Red  Bank  pump  canal.  Preliminary 
Estimate  No.  11. 


PRELIMINARY  ESTIMATE  No.  15. 
Iron  Canyon  Project — California. 

PROJECT  HEADQUARTERS. 

CONSTRUCTIO.V. 


Item 

Quantity 

Unit  cost 

Total  cost 

Summary 

Improvements: 
Office  buildings  

$50,000 

10,000 

5,000 

1,000 

Warehouses 

Garage  and  eQuipment 

Grounds 

Total  estimated  field  cost 

$66,000 

Engineering  and  administration           

10% 

6  600 

Totals 

$72,600 

Contingencies 

15% 

10,890 

Total  estimated  cost  of  project  headquarters     

$83  490 

Roughly 

Does  not  include  interest  during  construction. 


$83,500 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


187 


PRELIMINARY  ESTIMATE  No.  16. 

Iron  Canyon  Project — California. 

IRON  CANYON  DAM. 

CONSTRUCTION. 

Es'.imatod  cost  to  raise  wator  surface  iei  reservoir  from  elevation  392.5  to  400  by  installing  movable  gates  in  the 
siphon  spilbrayp  anil  auxiliary  crests  on  the  ogee  spillway.    Sec  Plate  11. 

Storage  ix;tween  elevation  392.5  and  400 186,200  acre-feet 

Gross  reservoir  storage 961.300  acre-feet 


Item 


Quantity       Unit  cost 


Total  cost    Summary 


Flood  control  section: 
Station  15-1-33  to  21-t-OO.    Slide  gates,  15'  x  7.5': 

Structural  steel 

Cast  iron —    ^v 

Gates 

Gate  guides 

Stem  guides 

Stuffing  boxes 

Rolled  steel  stems 

Steel  bolts 

Bronze — 

Gate  seats 

Screws 

Hoists,  54-20?^:  1  geared;  27  sets  of  2 

Freight 

Installation  and  painting 


Total,  slide  gates  in  place 

Total  increased  cost,  flood  control  section. 


117,000  lbs. 

133.000  lbs. 

142,000  11)8. 

5,400  lbs. 

4,300  lbs. 

49,100  ll)S. 

13,000  lbs. 

25,200  lbs. 
270  lbs. 

45,200  lbs. 
534,470  lbs. 
534,470  lbs. 


27 


10.  OS 


Ogee  spillway  section: 
Station  40-1-00  to  50-1-00.    .\uxiliary  crests,  2' 6"x  10'  1"  panels: 

Structural  steel 

Cast  steel  posts,  100   

Cast  iron  sockct.s,  100 

6"  rubber  belt  seals,  4  ply 

Freight 

Installation  and  painting 


Total,  auxiliary  crests  in  place 

Total  increased  cost,  ogee  spillway  section. 


53,900  lbs. 

7.000  lbs. 

3,000  lbs. 

1.490  1.  f. 
65,000  lbs. 
65,000  lbs. 


99  panels 


$0.08 
.25 

I-  .15 
.70 
.01 

K.02 

96.00 


Total  estimated  increased  field  cost . 
Engineering  and  administration 


Contingencies 

Total  increased  cost . 


15% 


$9,360 


15 

19.950 

15 

21.300 

25 

1,350 

35 

1.505 

25 

12.275 

10 

1,300 

75 

18,900 

75 

202 

35 

15,820 

01 

5,345 

05 

26,724 

§134,031 

00 

135,000 

S4,312 

1,7.50 

4.50 

1,043 

650 

1,300 


S9,505 
9.504 


$135,000 


9,504 


$144,504 
14,450 


$158,954 
23,843 


$182,797 


Roughly — 

Does  not  include  interest  during  construction. 


$183,000 


188 


!l 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


PRELIMINARY  ESTIMATE  No.  17. 
Iron  Canyon  Project — California. 


IRON  CANYON  DAM. 


CONSTRrCTION. 


Estimated  cost  to  raise  water  surface  in  reservoir  from  Elevation  392.5  to  405.5  by  installing  movable  gates  in  the 
siphon  spillways  and  on  the  ogee  spillway.    See  Plates  12  and  13. 

Storage  Ijctween  Elevation  392.5  and  405.5 346,800  acre-feet 

Gross  reservoir  storage 1,121,900  acre-feet 


Item 


Flood  control  section: 
Station  15-1-33  to  21-|-00: 
Additional  concrete  in  siphon  spillway  to  accomodate  gates. . . 
Slide  gates,  15' x  13': 

Structural  steel 

Cast  iron — 

Gates 

Gate  guides 

Stem  guides 

Stuffing  boxes 

Rolled  steel  stems 

Steel  bolts 

Bronze — 

Gate  seats 

Screws 

Hoists,  54-60:  1  geared;  27  sets  of  2 

Freight 

Installation  and  painting 


Total,  slide  gates  in  place 

Total  increased  cost,  flood  control  section. 


Ogee  spillway  section: 
Station  39+29  to  50-t-OO: 
Excavation — 
Class  II,  base  of  dam  and  discharge  channel. 
Class  II,  deep  cutoff 


Total  excavation.  . . . 

Concrete — 

Crest  and  piers,  1:2J^:5.  . 

Downstream  cutoff,  1:3:6. 

Deep  cutoff,  1:3:6 


Total  concrete  in  place 

Movable  crest  gates,  65'  x  8'  hydraulic  operated  drum  gates — 

Gates,  seat  castings  hinges 

Pier  plates  and  operating  mechanism 

Freight 

Installation  and  painting 


Movable  crest  gates  in  place 

Total  ogee  spillway  section . 

Total  gross 


Credit — elinunation  of  gravity  section  from  Station  39-1-29  to 

40-1-00: 
Excavation — 

Class  II,  deep  cutoff 

Concrete — 

Dam,  1:3:6 

Deep  cutoff,  1:3:6 


Total  concrete  in  place . 
Parapets 


Credit  for  gravity  section. 


Credit — elimination  of  original  ogee  spillway 
Sta.  40-1-00  to  504-00: 
Excavation — 
Class  II,  base  of  dam  and  discharge  channel. 
Class  II,  deep  cutoff 


Total  excavation . 


Quantity 


1,460  cy. 

166,000  lbs. 

138,000  lbs. 

188,000  11)8. 

8,10011)8. 

6.700  lbs. 

96.100  lbs. 

17,500  lbs. 

37,300  lbs. 
340  lbs. 

89,600  lbs. 
747,040  lbs. 
747,640  lbs. 

27 


46,800  cy. 
8.530  cy. 

55,330  cy. 

18,300  cy. 
950  cy. 
8,530 


27.780  cy. 

1,350,000  lbs. 

225,000  lbs. 

1,575,000  lbs. 

1,575,000  lbs. 


15 


530  cy. 

1,500  cy. 
530  cy. 

2,030  cy. 
142  I.  f. 


43,500  cy. 
8,000  cy. 


51,500  cy. 


Unit  cost 


$9.00 

.08 

.15 
.15 
.25 
.35 
.25 
.10 

.75 
.75 
.35 
.01 
.05 

7,300.00 


$1.50 
7.50 


$14.00 

7.75 
7.75 


$0.06 
.15 
.015 
.07 


16,650.00 


$7.50 

7.50 
7.75 


10.00 


$1.50 
7.50 


Total  cost    Summary 


$13,140 

13,280 

20,700 

28,200 

2,0,50 

2,345 

24,050 

1,750 

27,975 

255 

31.360 

7,476 

37,382 


$190,823 
197,100 


$70,200 
63,975 


$134,175 

$256,200 

7,362 

66,108 


$329,670 

$81,000 
33,750 
23,625 

110,250 


$248,625 
249,750 


$3,975 

11.250 
4,108 


$15,358 
1,420 


$65,250 
60,000 


$125,250 


$210,240 


713,595 


$923,835 


$20,753 


DEVELOPMENT  OP  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


189 


PRELIMINARY  ESTIMATE  No.  17— Continued. 


Kcm 

Quantity 

Unit  cost 

Total  cost 

Suraniary 

Concrete — 

Crest,  1:3:6 

Deep  cutoff  1:3:6 

16,600  cy. 
8,000  cy. 

$7.50 
7.75 

$124,500 
62,000 

Total  concrete  in  place 

24,600  cy. 

$186,500 

Credit  for  ogee  spillway 

$311  750 

Total  credits 

$332  503 

Total  estimated  increased  field  cost — cost  less  credits 

$591,332 

10% 
15% 

59,133 

s 

$650,465 
97.570 

Total  estimated  increased  cost 

$748,035 

Rouglily $748,000 

Does  not  include  interest  during  construction. 


190 


WATER  RESOURCES  OP  CALIFORNIA. 


WATER  SUPPLY  AND  POWER  STUDIES. 

Talilc  13.  .Study  No.  1*  (Summarized  on  page  102). 
Table  14.  .Study  No.  2*  (Summarized  on  page  103). 
Table  15,  Study  N'o.  3*  (Summarized  on  page  103). 
Table  16,  Study  No.  4*  (Summarized  on  page  103). 
Table  17,  Study  No.  5*  (Summarized  on  page  104'). 
Table  18*  (Summarized  on  page  107). 

Tabic  19 190 

Table  20*  (Summarized  on  page  108). 
Table  21*  (Summarized  on  page  109). 

Table  22 191 

Table  23*  (Summarized  on  page  109). 

Table  24 191 

'Details  not  printeil  to  save  spaee.    These  are  on  file  at  office  of  Division  of  Engineering  and  Irrigation  and  may 
be  consulted  there. 


TABLE  19.     OUTPUT  OF  POWER  AT  IRON  CANYON  IN  THOUSANDS  OF 

KILOWATT  HOURS,  BY  YEARS. 


Year 

Maximimi  water  surface 

elevation  400. 

1,000.000  acre-feet  project. 

M.Tximura  installation. 

Maximum  water  .surface 

elevation  400. 

800.000  acre-feet  project. 

Maximum  installation. 

Maximum  water 

surface,  405.5. 

800.000  aere-feet 

project. 

Maximum 

100,000  h.p. 
*57.5% 

105,000  h.p. 
*S3.5% 

100.000  h.p. 
*56% 

105,000  h.p. 
•53% 

installation. 

110.000  h.p, 

•53% 

1895-90 

527,720 
586.980 
518.970 
507.020 
568.870 

548.350 
543,030 
581. .560 
,599.280 
621.140 

526.480 
574.210 
506.700 
526.230 
58G,.540 

540.000 
.528.380 
,562.711) 
,561.680 
5.56,300 

558.020 
530.960 
4.54.230 
.503,810 
365.200 

581,680 
489,120 
476,380 
290.570 

549,520 
609,030 
528,070 
517,540 
587,930 

568,900 
559,.380 
603.000 
626.530 
645,640 

548,280 
698,710 
.588,.500 
548.030 
610,040 

560,800 
547.440 
584.510 
585.080 
578,000 

579,820 
549,100 
462.560 
.520.170 
367,920 

602,680 
502,740 
485,.580 
290,570 

534.530 
596,990 
497,940 
512,600 
581,430 

551.200 
548.570 
580.480 
600.500 
625,730 

534.030 
.';86  040 
579.130 
537.370 
588,440 

557,220 
.598,870 
577,480 
564,980 
566,180 

500.980 
546.710 
465.080 
.508.  KiO 
385.160 

583.530 
504.1.50 
500.490 
313.700 

554,130 
621.490 
508,840 
523,560 
602,230 

570,400 
567,770 
602,280 
626,650 
652.980 

554.380 
608.840 
600,930 
556,470 
610,690 

576,320 
617,970 
599,280 
586.780 
587,330 

,582,780 
.562.120 
474,150 
,522.710 
387,880 

605,330 
517,7.50 
507,580 
313,700 

584  950 

1896-97         

652  550 

1897-!'8 

1898-99 

565,200 
550  450 

1899-00 

632,900 

1900-01 

000,500 

1901-02 

596,450 

1902-03 

633  720 

1903-04 

659,350 

1904-05 

685.800 

1905-06 

581.500 

1906-07 

606,650 

1907-08 

629,100 

1908-09 

582,800 

1909-10   

642,050 

1910-11 

603,950 

1911-12 

.584.300 

1912-13   

628  950 

1913-14 

616,300 

1914-15 

616,.520 

1915-16 

612.050 

1916-17 

588,750 

1917-18 

497,700 

1918-19 

551000 

1919-20..    .              

1920-21 

1921-22 

410.200 

637.150 
.544,300 

1922-23 

531,700 

1923-24.. 

334,970 

.\verage  annual 

530.420 

548,520 

540.990 

558,740 

584,890 

*.\verage  percentage  of  time  during  which  water  is  available  to  operate  plant  to  full  capacity. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


191 


TABLE  22.     IRON  CANYON  PROJECT. 

Irrigation  draft  800.000  acre-foet.    Maximum  reservoir  elevation  405.5.    Maximum  installaticn  105,000  horsepower 
and  110,000  horsepower.    Primary  power  output  in  October  44,000  horsepower. 

Iron  Canycn  Only— Quantities  In  Horsepower. 


1915-1916 

1919-1920 

1923-1924 

Month 

Potential 
output* 

Primary 
demand 

Primary 

demand + 

pumping 

load 

Potential 
output 

Primary 
demand 

Primary 

demand -H 

pumping 

load 

Potential 
output 

Primary 
demand 

Primary 

demand -(- 

pumping 

load 

October 

45,360 

41,000 

202.000 

352,000 

515,000 

382,000 

224,000 

147,000 

115,000 

118,000 

98,400 

62,700 

44,000 
41,000 
41,600 
38,600 
38,600 
41,000 
40.400 
52.300 
64.300 
67.800 
67.300 
57,600 

45,360 
41.000 
41.600 
38,600 
38,600 
41,340 
42,150 
57.730 
71,300 
75.270 
74.100 
61,790 

45,360 
41.000 
41,600 
38.600 
38.600 
50.000 
153.000 
88,200 
91,200 
81,600 
70,600 
56,000 

44,000 
41,000 
41,600 
38,600 
38,600 
41,000 
40.400 
52.300 
64,300 
67.800 
67.300 
57,600 

45.360 
41.000 
41.600 
38.600 
38.600 
41.340 
42,250 
57,730 
71. .300 
75.270 
74,100 
61,790 

45,360 
41,000 
41,600 
38.600 
38.600 
41.340 
42.150 
72.400 
73,700 
70.700 
62,800 
43,300 

44,000 
41,000 
41,600 
38,600 
38.600 
41,000 
40,400 
52.300 
64,300 
67,800 
67,300 
57,600 

45,360 

41,000 

December  

41.600 

January »> 

38.600 
38.600 

March             

41,340 

.\pril      

42,150 

Mav   

57.730 

,IUMC                      

71.300 

July      

75.270 

74.100 

September 

61,790 

49.500 

49,500 

49,500 

*0n  the  graplis  prepared  from  the  above  tables  the  maximum  output  for  water  surface  at  elevation  400  is  shown  as 
100,000  horsepower  and  for  water  surface  at  elevation  405.5  the  maximum  output  is  shown  as  105,000  and  110,000  horse- 
power. 


TABLE  24.  IRON  CANYON  PROJECT. 

Irrieation  draft  800.000  acre-feot.  Maximum  reservoir  elevation  405.5.  Maximum  installation  105.000  horsepower, 
and  110.000  horsepower  at  Iron  Canyon,  and  10,400  horsepower  at  Mooney  Island,  total  115.400  and  120.400  horsepower. 
Primary  power  based  on  44.000  horsepower  at  Iron  Canyon  in  October  and  9000  at  Mooney  Island.  October  output— 
53,000  horsepower-t-1360  horsepower  pumping  load. 

Iron  Canyon  and  Mooney  Island  CcmbinEd— Quantities  In  Horsepower. 


Month 


October. . . 
November . 
December. 
January. . . 
February. . 
March .... 

.\pril 

May 

June 

July 

.\ugust .  .  .  . 
September . 


Averages 


1915-1916 


Potential 
output* 


54,360 
49,400 
210,500 
359,900 
522,900 
390,400 
232,250 
157,260 
125,260 
128.260 
108,660 
72,250 


Primary 
demand 


53,000 
49,400 
50,100 
46,500 
46,500 
49,400 
48.650 
63,000 
77,400 
81,600 
81,000 
69,400 


59,620 


Primary 

demand + 

pumping 

load 


54,360 
49,400 
50,100 
46,500 
46,500 
49,740 
50.400 
68,430 
84,400 
89.070 
87,800 
73,590 


1919-1920 


Potential 
output 


54.360 
49,400 
50,100 
46,500 
46,500 
58,400 

161.250 
98.460 

101.460 
91.860 
80.860 
65,550 


Primary 
demand 


53.000 
49.400 
50,100 
46,500 
46.500 
49,400 
48.650 
63.000 
77,400 
81,600 
81,000 
69,400 


59,620 


Primary 

demand + 

pumping 

load 


54,360 
49,400 
50,100 
46.500 
46.500 
40.740 
50,400 
68.430 
84.400 
89.070 
87.800 
73,590 


1923-1924 


Potential 
output 


54,360 
49,400 
50,100 
46,500 
46,500 
49,740 
50,350 
82,660 
83,960 
80,960 
73,060 
52,850 


Primary 
demand 


53.000 
49,400 
50,100 
46,500 
46.500 
49.400 
48.650 
63.000 
77.400 
81.600 
81,000 
69,400 


59,620 


Primary 

demand  + 

pumping 

load 


54,300 
49.400 
50.100 
46.500 
46.500 
49,740 
50,400 
68.430 
84.400 
89.070 
87.800 
73.590 


*0n  the  graphs  prepared  from  the  above  table,  the  maximum  output  for  water  surface  at  elevation  400  is  shown  as 
110,400  horsepower,  and  for  maximum  water  surface  at  elevation  405.5  the  maximum  output  is  shown  as  115,400  and 
120,400  horsepower. 


192  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


Iron  Canyon  Project — California. 
PHOTOGRAPHS.* 

Numl)ors  at  the  side  of  the  sheet  are  those  by  which  the  films  on  tile  in  the  Commissioner's  office.  Bureau  of  Reclama- 
tion, Washington,  D.  C,  are  known.     If  additional  prints  are  desired,  order  should  l.e  l)y  number,  thus:  Iron  Canyon  10. 

'Not  included  in  printed  report. 


?Tom  Ret 
Xndsraon-Cotij 
oODtour  sbond 
Exhibit  "C"  d 
J.  Qault  and 
water  in  the 
haa   been  mada 


LE 


PLATE  3 


ASSeSSOt'S  PtATS 


Roads  ^ 
Hailroads 

Distn'd-  Bouodary 
Grspt  Bou/idary 
Jedtoo  Linesr 
Rvperty  8oi/ndaries 

Number  of  Sections 

Streams,  6u/crtes 

Main   Canal 

Lsfferels 


Co/umbie Grtsyeffy  Sarti^^- 
Co/umbfd  Sttt    Loam 
/?/  ver    ^sh 
Columbia  Fjne  5an<Jy 
AnJerson  Orave/fy 
Redding  Or^veHy    L 
Columbio  Lo^m 
Anckr3on  f^i'ne  S^ncfy 
Recfc^irt^    Lasm 
Are>s   Lhsuryeyed 


®   ' 

%  -ISi 

"t'l^ 

G 

©Vl)-^- 

NWOOD   IRRIGATION  DISTRICT 


©;i  L 


MAP 

ov/i  iig 

ct  yciovi  400 »   contour 

v'ed   notes^  '  4I-D-94 


50667 — pages  192-193 


?roiB  Report  of  Hoveniber  6,  19S3  od  the  «conoailc  elCuatlon  lo  ths 
Andorson-Cottoiniood  Irrigation  DlstTlot  by  David  waelcs.  The  400  foot 
oontour  shovra  Is  plotted  froa  the  map  of  Iron  CftDj^OD  Beseirolr  Bite. 
Exhibit  "C"  of  the  Hoport  on  Iron  Caayoo  Frojeot,  California  by  Homer 
J.  Gsult  and  ff.  ?,  UoClnre  dated  liy  1920.  It  is  noi^  proposed  to  store 
"Bter  In  the  reeerrolr  to  eleTatlon  405.5.  flo  eurre;  of  this  oontour 
hsa   been  made   In  conneotlon  nith  this   report. 


PLATE  3 


EGEND 


fbilroaas 

Di'stn'cf  Bovodaiy 
6mr^  Boundary 
JtcHon  unesr 
Pnperly  Qivndariei 

Number  of  Stctioni 
StTzsms,  6u/cha 
Han   CSral 


Ca/vmbis  Gn3ire//y  Sandy  Loam 

Columbia  Silt    Loam 

River    ^sh 

Columbia  Fine  Sindy  Loam 

Anderson  G nave II y    Lo^m 

/bedding  Gravelly    Loam 

ColumtUg    Loom 

Anderson  fine  Sandy  Loam 

Rec/dli^    Lo^m 

Are^   Unsuryeyed 


ANDERSON  COTTONWOOD   IRRIGATION  DISTRICT 


SOIL      MAP 

3h  ovd  ng 
•;^rtlon  of  Jlstrlot  'cclow  400'   ccntoxir 


SV-A-7 


41- D-  94 


50C67 — pages  192-193 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPEU  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


193 

PL/\TE     4 


Lun|oa -S-QSn    -  NOI1VA313 


13—50667 


DEVELOPMENT  OF   Ul'l'KK  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


193 
PL/ME        4 


Ujn|oa-S'9'Sn    -  NOI1VA313 


-50667 


194 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


PLATE 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


195 

PLATE  6 


o 

Q. 

in 

UJ 

X 

o 


o 

2 

OC 

u. 
O 

X 

O. 

UJ 

o 


0123456789      10     II     12 
DEPTH  OF  PRECIPITATION  IN  INCHES  PER  MONTH 


FROM  RAINFALL- RUNOFF  CURVE  BY 
C.E.6RUNSKY,   SEE   PAGE  85,  VOLUME- 
LXXXV,  TRANSACTIONS  A.5.C.E.F0R  1922. 

ORIGINAL  CURVE   HAS  BEEN  CONVERTED  TO 
RAINFALL  AND  RLH^OFF   BY  MONTHS. 


DEPARTMENT   OF  THE    INTERIOR 
BUREAU  Or    RECLAMATION 
IRON  CANYON  PROJECT- CALIFORNIA 

IRON  CANYON  RESERVOIR 

RAINFALL-RUNOFF  CURVE 


DRAWN  WAP,. .^^'"^  SuBM/rTeo/^, 
CMfCKED.75j^<i/r  ..APPROVED 


//A7^ 


SV-40|6ERKELEY.CALIf,6-l9'?5|4i-D-97 


196 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CAIilFORNIA. 


PLATE  7 


UJ 


q: 
O 


o 

< 
I/) 


2 

10 

Z 
< 

or 


Oct.  Nov.  Dec.  Jan 

Feb.  Mar 

Apr. 

May  June 

July 

Auq 

Sept. 

"*""" 

1 

2000 

1500 

1000 

500 

--•p^ 

555^  >/Z'/y. 

^^ 

^^ 

^y|^ 

^^ 

^ 

W^ 

$$$i 

^^^ 

^^ 

w^ 

^^^^^ 

:s^x>^ 

A 

S^ 

^^ 

^^ 

^^ 

^^::^^^^<^^^^^ 

1915-16 

CAveraqe  Yccir) 


1919-20 

(Low  Year] 


Oct.  Nov  Dec.  Jan.  Feb.  Mar.  Apr  May  June  July  Auq.Sept. 

1923-24 

[Lowest  Year  of  Record) 


Y/^/Z^'i  Iron  Canyon  Project  Demands 
f^^^^^^^^l   Pri"or  Riqhfs  (Assumed) 

Measured  at  U.S.G.S.Oaqmq  Station 
4i  Miles  above  Red  Bluff. 


DEPARTMENT   OF  THE   INTERIOI* 

BUREAU  OF  RECLAMATION 
IRON  CANYON   PROJECT- CALIF 

SACRAMENTO   RIVER 

RUN-OFP  AT  RED  BLUFF 


CHec»CE0^5!:^^.APPR0VED / 


SY-  33  |gERKEiEY.CAuF5io:isJ4|.p.9g 


Joi 


-^—^. — f^ 


m 

////. 


--■'-r 

/  ^  / 

r^'^ 


v^ 


■"V?^. 


I  .d.eOA  .J3     VA>A 


i,60 
urn 

re 


^^,  A     r\r\  '\   .\  ^  r 


U 


V  I  kj  \^  o  \.»      \/  1 

•    ->   -I  ?    !     I    -•  .-->    >~N-' 


■^111     c 


)0   l-3flOA   000.006    -  a* 


r 


Jir 


)0 


006(il 


Oct  Nov  Dec  Jon  Feb  Mar  Apr  MoyJuneJuly  Auq  Sept 


1000 


500 


^.. 

,SP[ 

.L- 

•— . 

1     1 

^ 







— 

1 — 1 

/ 

\ 

y 

\ 

^ 

s. 

W/////y///yy//A'//A////, 

M'/m///y///m', 

y7/, 

mv/A////. 

'^/^//a 

y//M/y 

■v,A7m///myY//A 

Oct  Mov  Dec  Jon  Feb  Mar  Apr  MoyJuneJuly  Auq  Sept 
_SPILLWAY   EL.  400,  STORAGE  9613pO_AJ 

Storaqe   of  714,000  Acre-Feet  below  El,  353 
15  reserved  to  create  minimum  power  tieod  of  lOOfr. 


Oct  Nov  Dec  Jon  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  June  July  Auq  Sept 

/ 

r-- 

SP 

LL- 

^ 

s 

/ 

^ 

/ 

s. 

s 



=^^ 

"T/ 

7^^ 

Z7} 

ZTT: 

T:i^ 

KTT:^.-' 

^^"" 

\-r^-r^ 

""■^■^ 

vr^ 

; 

._ '._.;j 

1       i      '      :       '       '      '     ' 

,.,l.,. 

,y^^. 

,,/k./,i   .\.    ;.    ,t.v.iz,i//>; 

■/ 

p=^ 

;5PiLL 

/ 

\ 

/ 

s 

^ 

^ 

\ 

^ 

■^ 

S, 

„^-- 

s 

"v. 

77r, 

7V77 

tv,^  7'//X///X/T7'^'77Z/ 

??$^^?^^ 

p7^ 

^^;///,y-^ 

V'   ■>, 

Y  ■■' 

^, 

. 

■".-■',  .  I  .  - .  1  ,  .  . 

'.     t      :    .;      ;.     ;      ;.  .; 

1000 


500 


1000 


500 


Oct  Nov  Dec  Jon  Feb  Mar  Apr  MoyJuneJuly  Auq  Sept 


1915-16 

Averaqe  Year 


1919-20 

Low  Year 


1000 

500 

0 
lOOC 

500 

0 
1000 


y-- 

SPl 

LL- 



t--. 

1 — 

1 

/ — 



— 

■ 

— 

' — 

■^ 

y 

s 

/ 

N 

,^ 

■^ 

\\ 

'^'■y/\'/A' 

'^ 

W/. 

1 1 

y///////a:7A 

Wyy/zy'/Ay/A 

m 

V/A 

'////. 

M'^, 

^ 

V/.W/^//^. 

m 

mm 

••1 

•SPIl-L 

1 — 1 

^ 

/ 

^-^ 

/ 

\ 

/ 

>> 

^ 

\ 

^ 

\ 

.-— — 

\ 

fi^:.,-^ 

,'  _  _^  _  j \ 

„^^„-,_J 

„\ 



ShoM3q;«]p8T00  *  F  ^-^^^J 

.  /.V 

'/a, 

'.,^.;-.,l,,,,t;,,r 

^",k':::. 

■•■    J    ,.:■ 

I923-2A 

liswest  Year  of  Record 


500 


Oct  Nov  Dec  Jon  Feb  Mar  Apt  MoyJuneJuly  Auq  Sept." 
SPILLWAY    EL,  405.5,  STORAGE  I.I2I.90O  A.F. 
Storaqe  of  364  600  Acre- Feet  below  El.  368  is 


?" 

ST" 

> 

\ 

/ 

s 

/ 

Nj 

/ 

s 

f  - 

^^. 

V 

U- — ' 

1 

^^ 

-^-^J 

.  . . .  J.  . ,  , 

Sfio'r^aat!  f|i  Aoq^fta'lbo  A  F^s.  . 
'"    .       fdrYtolt  103.100  A  F-+f^^ 

Oct  Nov  Dec  Jon  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  June  July  Auq  Sept. 
SPILLWAY  EL.  400,     STORAGE  961.300  A.F 


Oct   Nov  Dec  Jon  Feb.  Mor  AprMoyJuneJcly  AuqJept. 


PLATE     8 


Oct  NoyDec.Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  MoyJuneJuly  Auq  Sepi 
SPILLWAY  EL  405.5,  5T0RA6E  I  121.900  A  F. 


fHVSICAl 
'k  0  SCIENCES 
■♦       USBARV 


jiuiui^K  ui  oot  Duu  Mcre-reer  oeiow  ti.  JDO  is      V///""  '■■'■""A 

reserved  to  crgajgjrijnirnurTXB^ovyer_hegd  of  115ft     '''~vZ.,.  \^^ 


To  produce  a  uniform   output  of  power  and  to  supply  water  required) 

for  naviqation  and  prior  riqhts,  the  discharqe,tili  reservoir  is  filled/ ,-0=^^  -412PAloo_a 


Storaqe  of  364.600  Acre  Feet  below  El  368  is  reserved  to 
create  minimum  power  head  of  US  ft 


is  ossunied  equivalent  to  4200  c'fs  times  the  indicated  minimum  heads/ 

GROSS  ANNUAL   PROJECT  DEMAND   -    800.000    ACRE- FEET 


MI5_ 
Avoiloble  Heod 


PHYSICAL 
SCIENfE? 

Lim.'AKY 


Storaqe  of  214,000  Acre  Feet  below  El  353  is 
reserved  to  creote  minimum  power  heod  oflOOtt. 

3600«l00iirii5  1"'^°  produce  a  uniform  output  of  power  and  fo  supply  water  required 
Q"*  1  ,^.Mki.  u^^^  {  for  naviqation  and  prior  riqhts, the  discharqe,  till  reservoir  is  filled, 
'"''^'"^"^''M  IS  assumed  equivalent  to  3600  c f.s.  times  the  in. 


GROSS  ANNUAL  PROJECT   DEMAND 


dicated  minimum  heads 

1,000,000    ACRE-FEET 


DEPAPTf.'ENT  OF  THt  IHTEIHO* 

BoRtAu   OF    fttCLAMA'tON 
IPON     CAMraM  PP^JtCT     -  Ci'-lF 

IRON  CaNYON  RESERVOIR 
GRAPHS  OF  OPERATION 

^.,.»^v/°>^.^,i.  ■ . .  .7".  ^ 


^ 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


197 

PLATE  e 


I 


< 


< 

3 


Oct 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr  May  June  July  Auq.  Sep-. 
\ II      J 1 

10 

n 



r- 

1 

5 

n 

RG.  aE.    FOR   SACRAMENTO     VALLEY 
From  Sacramento  Division  north, in  tha  ^a.ar  1911. 
From  data  furnished  Nov.28. 1924 


< 

Z 

UJ 

O 
(X 


10 


IT/^ofSJ.L.aPCosLoad 

is  Ac 

riculturaiKum 

)inq 

J*         1 

Oct  Wov  Dec  Jan  Feb.  Mar  Apr.  May  June  July  Auq.  Sept. 

S.J..  L  8c  R  CO.  FOR  SAN  JOAQUIN  VALLEY 

From  data  furnished  Oct.  21. 1914 

'MONTHLY  DISTRIBUTION  OF  POWER  BY  %  OF  MEAN  ANNUAL 


The  Curve  of  the  Pacific  Gas  and  Electric  Co. 
for  the  Sacramento  Yallcy  is  used  in  this 
Report  for  dctermininq  the  Output  of  Pnmory  Power. 


DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR 

BUREAU    OF  RECLAMATION 

IRON    CANYON  PROJECT- CALIF. 

POWER  DEMAND  CURVES 


fe* 


^t^.- 


drawn!'*''.   ^''^'  SUBMITTECW*^ 

cnEC>ceoT^»-:<*^APPPovEP  

SY-  13    {sehkeley.Cal.  s-^^'^^|4|-D-|Q0 


^■^^ 


v^M  l^^  noM  d9l  nol  osO  vcl/I  ioO 

0  . 

^ 

A  '  '    ■■" 

t 
I 

— t 1 

4^  .J:.. 


E 
g 


1     ' 

1 

- — 

i 

1 

.loU 

0001 


OOd 


51 


oo 

>  H 

(\) 

jj 

>  UJ 

CO  -J 

c> 


<%c?r 


?P 


-aei  as\ 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 


197 


PLATE  e 


Oct  Nov.  Dec.  Jan.  Feb.  Mar.  Apr  May  June  July  Auq.  Sepf 

^UAL   DEMAND 

D                  en                  o 

^■^■^ 

■ 

L_ 

^GE    OF   AlVir 

< 

R6.  aE.    FOR   SACRAMENTO     VALLEY 

From  Sacramento  Division  north, in  the  yaor  1911, 
From  data  furnished  Nov.28. 1924 

5  10 

o 
a: 

UJ 

a. 

^   s 

„ 

77*/^ofSJ.L.aPCos[:oad 

2 

isAa 

ricuIturalPumi 

)inq 

O 

^ 

0 
'MOWTH 

Oct  Nov  Dec  Jan  Feb.  Mar  Apr.  May  June  July  Auq.  Sept. 

S.J..  L  &  P.  CO.  FOR  SAN  JOAQUIN  VALLEY 

From  data  furnished  Oct.  21. 1924 

LY  DISTRIBUTION  OF  POWER  BYroOFMEANIAf 

^NUAL 

The  Curve  of  the  Pacific  Gas  and  Electric  Co. 

DEPARTMENT   OF  THE   INTERIOR 

BUREAU    OF  RECLAMATION 

IRON    CANYON  PROJECT- CALIF. 

POWER  DEMAND  CURVES 

for  the  Sacramento  YaKey  is  used  in  this 

drawn"'*'    «'C  SuBMlTTE«ii/^^<^- 

Kcport  tor  d 

ererm 

ininq 

]l\(Ll 

'Uipu 

ror  rf 

iman 

KOW 

i\. 

5Y-    13      iBeRKELEY.CAL    S   ->^SJ4|-D-|00 

I 


198  WATER  RESOURCES  OP  CALIFORNIA. 


f ; 

N 

0 

J 

F 

M 

A   t 

^ 

MONTHS 
F   M   A  M  J 

J 

A 

S 

100 

- 

-- 

■- 

— 

— 

-- 

-- 

- 

i 

s 

— 

^ 

bO 

l 

^ 

~ 

[- 

- 

« 

- 

— _ 

0 

, 

_ 

0 

N 

0 

J 

F 

M 

A 

M 

J 

J 

A 

S 

— 

— 

-- 

— 

— 

i 

^ 

i 

557 

g 

- 

IB 

--  — 

l_ 

- 

« 

100 


50 


o 
a 

to 
a 
o 

r 

u. 
o 

(O 
Q 

21 
< 
tn 

D 
O 

I 


r— 

1 

1 

1 

- 

■ 

. 

^ 

100- 



~^ 

_^ 

— 

■" 

^ii 

4-2 

"i    i 

IxJ  - 
1 

■I 

L 

= 

■    - 

— 

m 

■ 

. .  — 

4  - 

"" 

~ 

n  . 

1- 

~ 

^^ 

^~^ 

■* 

100 

.— 

m 

i 

iA 

_. 

^ 

^ 

^ 

... 

50 

... 

« 

jjg 

- 

— 

-- 

Vi 

.  .  * 

-T^ 

0 

0 

"hi 
-4   -, 

n 

.1 
4 

r 

M 

A 

IP'Y 

IC 

5,0 

A 
00 

M 

a  1 

J  ' 

04 

J 
00 

A 

H 

3 

i     I 

1 

1    • 

1 

77 

... 

i 

iS 

1 

^ 

^ 

— 

1 — 



... 

»~J 

77TT 

t.: 

1 

100 


50 


installed  Capacitforage  'to  El  40B.5 


ONDJFMAMJJAS 

Inslal  Capy  100,000  a  10.400  H  P 
Storage  to  El  400 


si.oragPtoi^^£Y   ISLAND  PLANTS,  COMBINED 


PHYSICAL 
SCIENCES 
LIBRARY 


DEPAHTMtNT    OF    TH£    lNTS.IHOIf 
BUREAU  OF    RECLAMATION 

IRON    CANYON  PROJECT     CALIFORNIA 

POWER    CURVES 

IRRIGATION  DRAFT   800,000  AC.FT 


!>«,<»»<  WAP,     (?M<C     sui>i^irTri<i/''jt/^'     ''t     i/n4ti^ 


SV  -  12   JBerkeiey. Calif. June  16  I9?5|4I-D-I0I 


506G7 — pages  198-19y 


MONTHS 
WUjrMAMJJAS  ONDJFMAMJJAS  0   N  D   J    F   MAM  J   J    A    5 


100 


-  -^-J--- 

... 

1         ^^ 

^ 

m. 

m 

' 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

— 

- 

— 

'" 

^ 

^ 

'm 

r 

^ 

^ 

m 

L_ 

r 

m 

% 

1 

i 

^ 

a 

^- 

""°° 

•MYSICAL 
LIBRARY        • 


MONTHS 
0   HO    J   F    MA   M  J   J   A   S  ON   0   J  F    MAM   J    J   AS  ONDJFMAMJ    J  A   S 


,ooS''^^3       ,,„„ 


1915-16 

50  50 

Average  Year 


^ 

— 

" 

^ 


d^ 

-^^ 

s 

■- 

- 

-1 

lj 

.. 

i 

il 

gioo 


u-   I/) 

o 


to 

§    0 

I 
I- 


- 

- 

i 

^ 

■ 

'" 

"■ 

^   J 

-1 

■^ 

^ 

^ 

a 

ac 

k- 

^ 

1 

— 

i 

1 

^ 

•" 

- 

23 

100 


100 


1919-20 

50  50 

Low  Year 


F 

''fl 

d 

— 

-X 

"■ 

r 

- 

I-J 

5^ 

?? 
& 

i 

'F? 

^ 

_ 

m 

— 

-\- 

^ 

il 

^ 

22 

-■ 

-H 

— 

— 

— 

m 

LU 

5 


lOO 

—  J 

i 

^ 

^ 

^ 

60 

i 

» 

■T 

.— 

■^ 

' 

^    0 

r' 

n 

1 

r 

M 

A 

M 

J 

J 

A 

5 

ONOJFMAMJJAS 


m 

w 

i 

^ 

- 

as 

100 


100 


1923-24 

50  60 

Lowest  Year 
of  Record 


ONDJ    FMAMJJA.S 


1 

^ 

- 

i 

'^ 

"• 

22 

L- 

V- 

.. 

..j-^ 

1.— 

100 


m 
tr 
o 

X 

50  u_ 
O 

tn 

D 
2 
< 
en 
0    3 

o 

X 

I- 


100 


.  50 


Installed  Capacity  liOOOO  H P 
Storage  to  ei  /i05  5 

IRON 


Installed  Capacity  lOS.OOOHP        Installed  Capacity  100.000  HP 

Storage  to  El  406  B  Storage  to  El  400 

CANYON    PLANT,     ONLY 


ONDJFMAMJJAS      ONdJ  FMAMJ  J  AS  ONOJFMAMJJAS  ' 

Instal  Cap'y  1 10 000 a  10400  HP      Instal  Capy  106,000  a  10400  H P  Inslal  Capy  lOQOOO  a  10400  H  P 

Storage  txj  El  406.6                    Storage  to  £1  405.5  Storage  to  El  400 

IRON   CANYON    and  MOONEY  ISLAND  PLANTS,  COMBINED 


LEGEND 

Primary  Power  based  on  demand  curve  of  Pacific  Gas  and  Electric  Co  for 
Sacramento  Valley  is  limited   to  the  maximum  output  that  can  be 
secured  in  a  season  like  1923-24  with  the  assurance  that  the  reservoir  will  fill 

Estimated  Output  Iron  Canyon  Project  Power  Plants. 

Estimated  Pumping  Load  for  Iron  Canyon  Project 


•ilYSICAL 
SCIENCES 
LIBRAE 


IRON    CANYON  PROJECT     CALIFORNIA 

POWER    CURVES 

IRRIGATION  DRAFT  800.000  AC.FT 


c^J^ldU     r  l/rurt^ 


WAP,     BM,C      sc 

CiieP        .-«■.■»  

SV  -  12  IBerkeley, Calif, June  16  ITO|4I-D-I0I 


i7 — pages  198-199 


fLM  11-     II 


PHYSICAL 
SCIENCES 
LIBRARY 


10667 — pages  193-199 


See  Drawinq  No  41-0-73 
Report  on  Iron  Cannon  Project.  May  1920. 


//fo/v  c/t/yyo-y  o/irt 
notfrtML  tv/ire/t  JURF/^cc  fi  4oo 

JP/LLWl^r    CREST    G/iT£^ 

/'/^[LinifmRY  ejTin/fTt  p/j/twiNs 


JfJO     \6imr:tr.Ciuf.Aiii30  BJs\'4^l-D-/OZ 


KUMtC.  1^^ 


W-- 17'-  .-: 


Denver  Office  Standard  Desigr) 
Stem  Guide  ■  4^' Stem 
Drawing  100 -C  223 


'  ^t 

S3 ' 

.......................... .^..-/.'fe 

'■: 

© 

L                       ®l 

ol 

%-. 

3 

"^"o^o"     ■<>     c"''^"-**     ""o^-^o     •'^-^"o-'o^fl 

W>1iF  PA/qA^ 


///4tr   SECTIONAL    PLAN 


\-^ 


o  op 


H/»i^  UPSTREAM   ELEVATION  HALF  SECTIONAL   ELEVATION 
SIPHON      CREST      GATE 


^■••■/2V*0'£ 


Dnve  Mec/rai^isrrr  Ihr 
Morsfs  not  shoivrT 


4j6  Nor7-  Risinq  (^afe.  Sfem- 
Doud/e  Acme  Thread^ 
r  Uad 

„       8<zve!  both  bnmrs- ssafy  em 
-^  k-  g  -^        fop  anetaaftmr.  edotts-. 


Bent  fop  of  t>rome  seat 


ELEVATION 


i&MZS 


SECTION 
SIPHON    SPILLWAY 


Denver  Office  Standard  Design 
Stem  Oufde  ■  3i  'Stem 
Dmwinq  IOO-C-223 


)667 — pages  198-199 


CREST  GATE  DETAILS 


See  Drawinq  no-  4/  -  C'23 
Report-  on  Iron  Canyon  Projecl  t^ay  1920. 


DEPARTMENT   Of    THE    INTERIOR 
BUREAU   OF    RECLAMATION 
IRON  CANYON   PROJECT-  CALIFORNIA 
IRON  CANYON    DAM 
NORMAL    WATER  SURFACE  -  EL    40S  5 

SPILLWAY  CREST  GATES 

PRELIM/NARY  ESTIMATE  DRAWING 


i-nc:  i.iii"iivx«r  c:i'nvjmc   UKawirvtf 


DRAWN 

cnecKEO  jjr^^    ApPKOvto 


SV  ~  39    |gfg*ffi£y  CAtie  JwiE  18  /9?s|  4J'0-t(i§ 


>667— pages  198-199 


^SS%> 


51a.O«oo 


15  20 

ELEVATION 


5ta.30*00 


(Normal  W.S.EI.  405.5.=  Crest  of 

■■■;   Movable  Gates  on  Iron  Canyon  Dam    "l^ 


I---25  --H 

1   K15h  i  ..••[!.  417.0 

^ ^'^ 


AOZO' 


Reinf.  Concrete 
Corewall > 


EARTH 


>l  I'  ■/  .'h  >- ^ rrrr 


El.  402  5 


Batter 
I- 30 

EMBANKMENT 


.^.•. 


^tr 


E!.350t-; 

TrYTrn-nTTTTT-rrirTnyiriyn-r-y-rr.-y-iiii/li"/ 


'"■/•'  •'/ 


ASSUMED  MAXIMUM  SECTION 


NOTE 

Location  of  Bend  Embankment  as  shown  on 
Elevation  is  on  Drawing  4I-C-I6  Exhibit  E 
Report  on  Iron  Canyon  Project.Calif  dated  May  1920. 


0667 — ^pages  198-199 


PRELIMINARY   ESTIMATE  DRAWING 


DEPARIMENT  Of    THE    INTERIOR 

BUOTftU   OF    RECIAMATION 

IRON  CANYON  PROJEaCALlFORNIA 

IRON  CANYON  RESERVOIR 

BEND  EMBANKMENT 


CHMCKKOi  .(.V\-..f^    A^PmOVBOt 


SV-37  IPtuKEliV  Calif.  eillbUtDIOS 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  201 


CHAPTER  VI. 


REPORT  OF  THE  BOARD  OF  ENGINEERS  ON  IRON  CANYON 

PROJECT. 

To  the  United  States  Reclamation  Service,  the  California  State  Depart- 
ment of  Engineering,  and  the  Iron  Canyon  Project  Association. 

Gentlemen:  This  board  lias  convened  at  Red  Bluff,  California,  in 
accordance  with  the  request  of  April  19,  1920,  of  the  chief  engineer  of 
the  United  States  Reclamation  Service,  copy  of  Avhicli  precedes  this 
report. 

Various  plans  of  an  Iron  Canyon  dam  were  discussed  in  tlie  printed 
report  of  October,  1914.  These  plans  Avere  all  based  on  Location  I,  as 
shown  on  general  location  map,  Exliibit  B,  following  page  76^  Subse- 
quent boring  investigations,  carried  out  in  accordance  with  recommenda- 
tions made  in  1914,  revealed  less  favorable  foundation  conditions  than 
had  been  assumed  and  further  borings  and  drift  work  were  deemed 
advisable  to  .ascertain  whether  other  dam  sites  in  the  canj'on  might  be 
found  where  conditions  are  more  satisfactory. 

In  accordance  with  suggestions  made  in  reports  of  ^Ir.  Hamlin, - 
a  member  of  this  board,  and  Prof.  A.  C.  Lawson,-'  of  the  University  of 
California,  two  lower  dam  sites  have  now  been  examined,  marked 
Location  II  and  Location  III  on  Exhibit  B,  which  have  made 
possible  an  intelligent  comparison  and  which  have  resulted  in  the 
selection  of  a  dam  site  at  Location  III,  about  o  miles  below  the  original 
Location  I.  The  geological  conditions  and  the  reasons  for  preferring 
Location  III  are  explained  in  the  following  paragraphs. 

The  dam  site  at  Location  I  is  that  projiosed  in  the  cooi)erative  report. 
The  one  favorable  feature  of  this  site  is  the  considerable  amount  of 
Agglomerate  No.  1  in  the  abutments  of  the  dam.  This  material,  how- 
ever, has  a  thickness  of  onlv  35  feet  across  the  vallev  and  in  the  river 
channel  it  has  been  entirely  cut  through  into  the  soft  sands  and  tuffs 
below,  as  shown  on  Exhibit  D.'  At  this  site  the  agglomerate  is  harder 
than  at  any  other  point  in  Iron  Canyon. 

The  unfavorable  conditions  are  : 

(a)  Agglomerate  No.  1  and  the  soft  sands  and  tuft's  below  dip 
upstream,  an  attitude  which  favors  percolation  outward  from  beneath 
Agglomerate  No.  1. 

(b)  The  soft  sands  and  tuft's  beneath  Agglomerate  No.  1  are  pervious, 
as  shown  by  the  fact  that  nearly  all  drill  holes  in  this  vicinity  yielded 
artesian  water. 

(c)  The  narrow  gorge  cut  through  Agglomerate  No.  1  extends  some 
distance  upstream  from  the  dam  site.  Leakage  will  occur  from  the 
bottom  of  this  gorge  uidess  it  is  filled  with  impervious  material,  which 

'  Page  205  of  this  bulletin. 

2  Appendix  1,  page  41,  "Report  on  Iron  Canyon  Project,  1920,"  by  United  States 
Reclamation    Service. 

^Appendix  3,  page  71,  "Report  on  Iron  Canyon  Project,  1920,"  by  United  States 
Reclamation     Service. 

*  Kxhibit  A,  lower  figure,  of  this  Imllrtin  ;  see  pnge  203. 


202  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

may  prove  to  be  an  expensive  and  uncertain  operation.  Regarding  this 
matter  Prof.  A.  C.  Lawson  states:  "Water  entering  these  sands  of  the 
river  trench  under  the  head  established  by  the  reservoir  would  partly 
pass  out  under  the  surrounding  country  and  escape  at  distant  points, 
but  would  tend  chiefly  to  escape  by  the  shortest  outlet,  which  would  be 
at  the  downstream  toe  of  the  dam.  Judging  by  the  incoherence  of  the 
sands,  their  coarse  texture,  their  caving  in  the  drill  holes,  the  artesian 
flow  from  some  of  them  and  the  strong  undercutting  of  the  river  banks 
below  low  water,  it  seems  probable  that  this  escaping  water  at  the 
lower  toe  of  the  dam,  under  high  pressure,  would  acquire  sufficient 
velocity  to  scour  the  sand  at  the  points  of  escape.  If  this  were  so  then 
a  process  making  for  the  undermining  of  the  dam  and  its  ultimate 
failure  would  be  inaugurated,  since  scouring  would  retreat  upstream 
below  the  dam." 

(d)  Paynes  Creek  basalt  is  a  very  pervious  formation,  and  is  in 
general  underlaid  by  a  thin  bed  of  porous  stream  gravel.  To  make  this 
formation  water-tight  a  cut-off  wall  must  be  built,  extending  well  down 
into  Agglomerate  No.  1,  along  the  axis  of  the  proposed  spillway 
structure.  In  addition  the  spillway  structure  must  be  built  on  this 
pervious  formation. 

(e)  Extensive  erosion  will  occur  in  Paynes  Creek  Canyon  if  the 
spillway  is  built  as  located.  Agglomerate  No.  1  has  been  deeply  trenched 
by  Paynes  Creek  and  nearly  cut  through  in  places.  Below  are  the  soft 
sands  and  tuffs  some  100  feet  in  thickness,  before  any  hard  beds  are 
reached.  The  overflow  from  the  spillway,  falling  over  the  west  wall  of 
Paynes  Creek  Canyon,  will  soon  cut  through  Agglomerate  No.  1  and 
undermine  it  and  the  basalt  above. 

When  all  the  adverse  conditions  at  this  site  are  considered  it  is  not 
believed  that  a  dam  such  as  proposed  is  practicable.  Obviously  an 
earth  or  masonry  dam  would  also  be  impracticable. 

Prof.  Lawson  recommended  tests  at  a  dam  site  here  designated 
Location  II,  at  a  point  where  the  hard  Agglomerate  No.  2  crosses  Sacra- 
mento River,  forming  a  riffle  or  small  rapids.  Here  drill  holes  show 
Agglomerate  No.  2  to  be  from  9  to  28  feet  thick  and  that  it  rests  upon 
pervious  sands  and  tuffs  of  unknown  thickness,  but  at  least  100  feet 
thick.  The  pervious  sands  and  tuffs  which  rise  from  beneath  Agglomer- 
ate No.  1  at  Location  I  would  here  form  the  abutments  of  the  proposed 
dam.  It  is  believed  that  Agglomerate  No.  2  is  not  thick  enough  for  the 
foundations  of  a  masonry  dam  and  that  the  sands  and  tuffs  both  beneath 
and  above  Agglomerate  No.  2  are  pervious.  This  dam  site  can  not  be 
recommended. 

At  Location  III  Agglomerate  No.  1  is  about  140  feet  thick.  The  river 
canyon  has  been  cut  down  into  it  some  30  feet,  leaving  about  110  feet  in 
thickness  above  the  pervious  sands  and  tuffs  on  which  it  rests.  This  is 
a  sufficient  thickness  to  withstand  the  upward  hydraulic  pressure  from 
a  full  reservoir,  as  planned. 

Here  Agglomerate  No.  1  is  not  as  hard  as  at  Location  I,  but  its 
bearing  power  is  sufficient  to  withstand  the  pressures  from  a  properly 
designed  masonry  dam.  The  dip  of  Agglomerate  No.  1  and  the  forma- 
tions both  above  and  below  it  is  downstream,  hence  the  removal  of 
material  from  beneath  Agglomerate  No.  1  by  percolating  water  is  not 
possible. 


DEVEI.OI'MKNT  OF  ri'l'EK  SACRAMENTO  RIVER. 
EXHIBIT  A, 


203 


Secfion"    C-C 
Horizonfe/ Scale  i /<oc?c?  rest 


Geologic  Section  of  Sacramento  Canyon  One-tliird  Mile  Upstream  from  Location  III. 


ZOO 


OMi 


I  Mi 


2Mi 


3  Ml      •« 

Agglomerate  Ho  2 
Geologic  Profile  of  Sacramento  Canyon  Through  Locations  I,  II  and  III. 

If  cut-off  walls  ill  the  sands  and  tuffs  which  rest  upon  Ag<?lomerate 
No.  1  are  found  necessary,  they  can  be  constructed  in  the  dry  above 
high-water  level  in  the  river.  Here  the  canyon  is  wide  enough  to  permit 
the  construction  of  flood-control  gates,  siphon  spillways,  and  supple- 
mentary overflow  spillways. 

In  anticipation  of  the  selection  of  Location  III  the  Denver  olhce  of 
the  United  States  Reclamation  Service  has  made  tentative  plans  and 
estimates  of  two  tvpes  of  dam,  viz,  gravity-section  concrete  and  a  com- 
bination of  solid  masonry  for  the  high  portion  of  the  dam  witli  buttress 
and  slab  construction  for  the  sides.  In  addition  for  comparative 
purposes  the  previous  estimate  of  a  rock-fill  earth-faced  type  of  dam  at 
Location  I  with  masonry  spillway  and  power-i)lant  features  has  been 
revised  by  adding  a  deep  cut-off  wall  in  porous  lava  under  the  spillway 


204 


WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


and  by  increasing  unit  prices  to  correspond  with  present  market  con- 
ditions.   The  comparison  stands  as  follows : 


Loca- 
tion 

Type 

Date 

Available 
reservoir 
capacity, 
acre-feet 

Estimated 

cost,  including 

right  of  w,ay 

and  Bend 
embankment 

Cost  per 
acre-foot 

I 

Earth  faced  rock  fill 

1914 
1920 
1920 
1920 

603,000 
003.000 
040.000 
640,000 

SIO.38.1250 
16.089.000 
17.977,000 
17,385,000 

S17.20 

I 

Earth  faced  rock  fill 

26.70 

III 

Gravity  concrete 

28.10 

III 

Combination  reinforced  and  gravity  concrete 

27.20 

f 


The  above  estimates  are  not  strictly  comparable  even  on  the  basis 
of  acre-foot  cost.  The  designs  for  Location  I  provide  for  only  190,000 
second-feet  spillway  capacity  at  as-sumed  high  water,  the  remainder  of 
the  flood  peak  being  figured  as  absorbed  in  surplus  reservoir  cai)acity 
over  that  required  for  irrigation.  This  entire  surplus  capacity  and 
even  more  is  now  needed  for  irrigation  alone  by  reason  of  irrigation 
rights  on  the  river  initiated  and  largely  matured  since  1914.  This 
would  necessitate  at  Location  I  a  greatly  increased  expenditure  for 
spillway. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  first  two  estimates  include  the  cost  of  a  70,000- 
horsepower  installation,  while  the  last  two  make  provision  for  only 
60,000-horsepower.  The  reduction  in  cost  occasioned  by  this  last 
difference  is,  however,  likely  to  be  smaller  than  the  addition  which 
would  have  to  be  made  for  spillway  purposes,  so  that  it  is  likely 
that  no  great  difference  would  exist  in  the  acre-foot  cost  at  either  loca- 
tion and  that  this  cost  will  be  close  to  $28,  barring  in  either  case  entirely 
unforeseen  foundation  and  flood  contingencies. 

In  regard  to  the  amount  of  storage  required,  it  should  be  stated  tliat 
a  revised  studv  has  been  made  bv  ^Ir.  Gault,  who  bases  his  studv  on  a 
net  duty  on  the  land  of  -2.75  feet,  a  total  canal  loss  of  one-third  with 
a  consequent  diversion  duty  of  4.125  feet,  as  compared  with  3  feet, 
which  was  used  in  the  1914  report.  Mr.  Gault  further  deviates  from 
the  older  report  in  considering  it  necessary  to  pass  the  entire  flow 
through  the  reservoir  when  the  flow  is  6000  second-feet  or  less,  during 
May  to  August,  inclusive ;  5000  second-feet  or  less  in  April  and  Sep- 
tember; and  4000  second-feet  or  less  in  the  remainder  of  the  year,  the 
limit  in  the  1914  report  being  4750  second-feet.  The  reason  for  this 
deviation  is  the  large  expansion  of  pumping  irrigation  in  the  Sacra- 
mento Valley  since  1914,  which  has  practically  absorbed  the  entire 
normal  low-water  flow  above  the  mouth  of  the  Feather  River,  the 
rights  so  far  matured  aggregating  between  5500  and  6000  second-feet. 
This  leaves  little,  if  any,  water  for  navigation  or  for  claims  of  riparian 
owners.  On  the  other  hand,  the  project  itself  maj'  produce  some 
return  flow. 

On  the  above  basis  ]Mr.  Gault  figures  that  with  a  reservoir  ail  devoted 
to  irrigation  and  holding  640,000  acre- feet,  shortages  would  have  been 
as  per  the  following  table : 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER, 
EXHIBIT   B. 


205 


.  122*15' 
40  ly 


T2«N 


Upper  Dam  Site  I  /*  -  \-  PcU/neS   Cr. 

LOCATIOri    I       V^i^ 


UNITtO  STATKS  RCCLAMATION  StRVICt. 

//TO//  C/f^yO/^  F/?OJ£CT-C/^L/t: 


.»  ,Bisz\  ^^^-^ ^^^  /**^^.^^/<-- es\ 

— ' S9C-^2/ 


206  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

Per  Cent  of   Deficiency. 

189S    7.0 

1899    ^-4 

1900    11 

1901  a; 

1918    13.0 

1919    1.1 

1920  (up  to  Oct.  1) 16.4 

In  the  above,  no  consideration  was  had  of  the  Anderson-Cottonwood 
District  appropriation  just  above  the  reservoir  of  400  second-feet,  which 
is  in  process  of  maturing,  except  that  since  1918  a  small  portion  of  the 
above  was  actually  diverted.  The  ultimate  appropriation  may  be  cut 
down  to  about  300  second-feet  if  the  Iron  Canyon  project  should 
acquire  with  the  district  lands  necessary  for  the  reservoir  the  water 
appurtenant  thereto.  This  diversion  will  slightly  increase  the  above 
shortages,  possibly  about  2  per  cent. 

This  board  has  taken  cognizance  of  the  above  facts  merely  to  con- 
sider the  general  correctness  of  the  size  of  reservoir  to  be  provided. 
Further  study  might  suggest  a  change ;  but,  if  so,  it  is  not  likely  to  be 
of  sufficient  importance  to  affect  the  main  object  of  this  report. 

Location  III,  being  geologically  shown  to  be  the  most  desirable  one, 
and  similarity  of  tentative  estimates  indicating  no  great  superiority  as 
to  cost  of  the  rejected  upper  Location  I,  has  been  made  the  basis  for 
further  study  of  dam  design.  The  longitudinal  section  along  the  dam 
center  line,  together  with  the  plan  of  the  dam,  is  shown  in  Exhibit  L,* 
following  page  76.* 

The  first  question  which  arises  is  the  character  of  material  avail- 
able for  construction.  Local  material  consists  of  agglomerate,  soft 
sandstone,  tuff,  and  cemented  gravel.  At  about  four  miles  distance 
excellent  concrete  aggregate  may  be  had  in  large  quantities.  Hard 
riprapping  rock  is  not  available  short  of  Paynes  Creek,  about  three 
miles  upstream,  or  may  be  had  from  quarries  on  the  main  Southern 
Pacific  Hallway,  40  miles  or  more  north  of  Red  Bluff". 

The  entire  length  of  the  dam  is  about  one  mile,  all  but  1700  feet  being 
70  feet  or  less  in  height.  The  channel  section  would  have  a  length  of 
800  feet  and  have  a  height  of  170  feet,  and  900  feet  length  of  dam 
located  on  the  canyon  slopes  would  have  a  height  ranging  from  170  to 
70  feet. 

The  spillway  flow  to  be  provided  for  is  estimated  at  350,000  second- 
feet.  It  is  possible  to  release  this  flow  over  a  long  spillway  on  the  west 
shoulder  of  the  canyon  at  some  distance  from  the  channel  section.  The 
down  flow  of  this  mass  of  water  on  its  return  to  the  river  would  take 
place  through  existing  gulches  and  channels  wliicli  might  be  enlarged 
for  the  ])urpose,  but  which  by  reason  of  tlieir  length  to  the  river  and 
tlie  friability  of  tlie  local  formation  would  be  extremely  expensive  to 
])rotect  from  erosion.  We  believe  that  only  an  emergency  spillway  of 
]-elatively  small  capacity  is  permissible  ou  tlic  west  shoulder  of  the 
river  canyon. 

A  spillway  clianuel  on  citlier  one  or  both  of  the  canyon  sides,  with 
short  return  channel  to  the  river,  would  involve  very  difficult  and 
expensive  construction   features.       The   discharge  would  have  to  be 

*  Exhibit  Li  not  Included  in  this  bulletin.  Page  reference  is  to  "Report  on  Iron 
Canyon  Project,  1920,"  by  United  States  Reclamation  Service. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  207 

turned  at  right  angles  toward  the  channel  under  high  velocity  and  the 
sandstone  and  tufl:  formation  through  which  this  channel  would  have 
to  be  largely  constructed  would  require  exti-aonliiiar.>  protection 
against  erosion. 

The  problem  of  spillway  discharge  becomes  relativelv  simple  through 
a  solid  concrete  channel  section  of  the  dam  and  similarly  sucli  section 
would  afford  the  most  economical  means  of  power  water  discharge. 
Such  section  would  also  inspire  the  greatest  confidence  in  view  of  tlie 
presence  of  a  large  population  in  the  valley  below  the  dam. 

The  principal  reason  for  the  selection  of  Location  III  was  explained 
in  previous  paragraphs  to  be  the  existence  of  a  mass  of  agglomerate  110 
feet  in  thiclmess  below  the  river  channel  at  the  dam  site.  This  material 
where  exposed  at  the  surface  is  a  natural  concrete  which  is  probably 
water-tight  and  has  considerable  hardness  and  great  bearing  power,  in 
every  way  satisfactory  as  a  foundation  for  a  high  concrete  dam.  The 
records  of  borings,  however,  are  not  nearly  so  favorable.  The  fine  bind- 
ing material  in  the  interior  of  the  mass  is  rather  soft,  so  that  but  a 
small  percentage  of  core  was  produced.  In  a  drift  in  the  east  abutment 
of  the  dam  also  the  material  becomes  rather  soft  away  from  air 
exposure. 

A  bearing  test  was  made  by  Mr.  Gault  indicating  for  the  softest 
part  of  the  material  that  no  yielding  resulted  under  a  pressure  of 
approximately  40  tons  per  square  foot,  the  test  surfaces  being  1  square 
foot  and  the  material  being  dry.  To  what  extent  in  such  test  the  side 
support  of  the  material  under  stress  aided  in  supporting  the  load  is 
uncertain  as  is  also  the  softening  effect  which  water  might  produce. 
We  believe,  however,  that  this  agglomerate  will  furnish  a  safe  founda- 
tion provided  the  maximum  pressures  do  not  exceed  10  tons,  which  is 
close  to  the  limiting  stress  in  the  Denver  design,  of  which  the  maximum 
section  is  shown  in  Exhibit  M.* 

In  this  section  the  back  slope  has  been  taken  as  1 : 1,  or  flatter  than  an 
ordinary  gravity  section  as  a  result  of  gate  and  siphon  spillway  design. 
The  section  is  large  enough  to  provide  against  one-third  full  pressure 
uplift  near  the  heel,  diminishing  to  zero  near  the  toe. 

The  general  agglomerate  mass  is  probably  reasonably  water-tight 
even  where  it  may  lack  hardness.  Nevertheless,  a  cut-off  trench  of  40 
or  50  feet  into  this  material  at  the  heel  may  be  regarded  as  neces.sary. 
The  material  seems  to  be  remarkably  free  from  seams,  but  grouting 
below  the  plane  of  cut-off*  is  desirable  as  a  precautionary  measure, 
together  with  providing  drains  back  of  the  cut-off,  these  drains  to  be 
confined  in  depth  to  the  agglomerate  and  on  no  account  to  penetrate  to 
the  underlj'ing  sandstone  and  tuff. 

With  such  provisions  it  is  not  likely  that  any  material  uplift  under 
the  foundation  will  develop,  and  the  provision  to  the  extent  explained 
above  seems  entirely  sufficient.  There  is,  however,  some  doubt  as  to 
whether  the  base  of  the  dam  should  not  be  spread  in  an  upstream 
direction  with  steel  reinforcement  reaching  into  the  main  base  of 
the  dam  to  take  up  shear  and  tension,  to  lessen  tlie  abruptness  of  the 
change  from  no  load  to  full  load,  and  to  keep  the  maximum  load  within 
the  10-ton  limit. 

*  Exhibit   M    not    included   in    this   bulletin. 


208  WATER  RESOURCES  OF  CALIFORNIA, 

The  material  in  the  hillsides  continues  to  be  agglomerate  for  a  height 
of  about  ;}0  feet,  above  whieli  level  occur  tuffs  and  sandstones,  which 
in  large  part  seem  less  desirable  as  a  foundation  for  a  masonry  dam. 
The  estimates  prepared  in  Denver  assume  concrete  masonry  construc- 
tion from  end  to  end.  It  seems  to  us  desirable  that  designs  be  also 
made  on  tlie  basis  of  earth-dam  construction,  such  construction  to 
commence  at  points  on  either  side  of  the  ma.sonry  section,  where  an 
abutment  Avail  could  be  feasibly  founded  on  agglomerate  by  deep 
excavation,  but  "where  the  height  of  tlie  dam  above  the  surface  has 
become  diminislied  to  from  80  to  70  feet.  This  is  suggested  largely 
by  foundation  conditions,  althougli  it  may  also  lead  to  lesser  co.st. 

In  regard  to  spillway  and  power  outlets,  the  solution  offered  by  the 
Denver  office  can  not  at  present  be  improved  upon  in  the  limited  time 
available  to  this  board.  It  should  be  stated,  however,  that  we  believe 
the  a])ron  ])rotection  below  the  dam  may  have  to  be  extended  to  insure 
the  standing  wave  occurring  on  the  apron.  Possibly  an  increase  in 
height  of  upstep  may  be  required  to  minimize  the  distance  from  dam  to 
wave.  It  may  also  be  wise  to  consider  a  concrete  upstream  apron  under 
the  earth  blanket,  reaching  possibly  100  feet  upstream  on  bottom  and 
canyon  sides  to  in.sure  against  water  passing  down  between  earth  apron 
and  dam  face. 

The  safety  of  the  dam  as  designed,  or  as  it  may  be  redesigned, 
depends  not  only  on  the  immediate  foundation  but  also  on  the  condi- 
tions of  underflow  in  the  sandstone  and  tuff  beds  below  the  agsrlomerate. 
To  satisfy  ourselves  as  to  this  crucial  feature  we  have  studied  boring 
records  and  examined  these  beds. where  they  rise  in  the  expo.sed  canyon 
sides  upstream  from  the  dam  site,  as  shown  on  Exhibit  D.* 

The  artesian  floAv  from  various  bore  holes  indicates  that  the  sand- 
stone will  permit  slow  flow  of  water.  The  most  dangerous  places  in 
such  cases  are  usually  the  planes  of  contact  between  different  beds. 
Contact  wherever  examined  seems  to  be  perfect.  The  flow  proceeds 
probably  from  the  coarser  layers  which  may  not  be  extensive  altliough 
])ockets  may  occur  with  great  frequency. 

We  believe  that  danger  from  a  rapid  flow  establishing  itself  along 
certain  lines  under  the  dam,  sncli  as  miglit  begin  carrying  material 
and  ultimately  leading  to  the  undermining  of  the  dam,  would  be  very 
serious  to  the  extent  of  causing  condemnation  of  the  dam  site  if  it 
were  not  for  the  fact  tliat  these  .sandstone  layers  below  the  dam  are 
overlaid  by  a  heavy  capping  of  reasonably  dense  agglomerate  dipping 
in  a  downstream  direction.  This  agglomerate  layer,  140  feet  thick 
where  not  eroded  by  the  river  and  with  a  minimum  thickness  next  the 
dam  of  110  feet,  is  so  far  as  known  remarkably  free  of  seams.  No 
springs  have  been  discovered  on  the  surface  of  this  layer.  The  weight 
of  this  mass  is  sufficient,  as  previously  stated,  even  where  not  overlaid, 
as  in  the  sides  of  higher  .strata,  to  resist  the  full  upward  pressure 
which  might  be  caused  by  underflow.  Should  any  seam  exist  and  water 
rise  through  it,  it  is  not  readily  conceivable  that  any  sand  would  be 
discharged  through  it,  and  if  any  sand  movement  from  beloAV  should 
gain  headway,  it  seems  certain  that  tlie  seam  would  become  promptly 
clogged  and  choke  any  further  upward  movement  of  sand. 

*  Exhibit  A,  lower  figure,  of  thi.s  bulletin  ;  see  page  203. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  UPPER  SACRAMENTO  RIVER.  209 

The  possible  occurrence  of  seams  in  this  material  has  been  especially 
a  subject  of  study  on  tlie  part  of  Mr.  Hamlin,  who  holds  that  no  fear  in 
that  regard  need  be  entertained. 

We  conclude,  therefore,  that  while  conditions  for  a  dam  at  the  best 
site  available  are  far  from  ideal,  a  safe  dam  can  be  constructed  at  this 
point.  Location  III,  but  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  item  of  contingen- 
cies to  guard  against  all  dangers  which  may  become  apparent  upon 
opening  up  the  foundation  may  be  greater  tlian  usual  and  that  the 
total  for  this  dam,  including  also  overhead  expenses,  estimated  at  25 
per  cent,  may  be  exceeded. 

Your  instructions  did  not  require  us  to  extend  this  study  to  the 
problem  of  project  feasibility.  We  have,  nevertheless,  given  some 
thought  to  this  matter  in  connection  with  further  action  contemplated 
by  the  Iron  Canyon  Project  Association. 

So  far  as  the  dam  and  reservoir  are  concerned  the  present  estimate 
stands  about  as  follows : 

Total  cost,  including  60,000  horsepower  development $17,977,000  00 

Credit  to  irrigation  on  account  of  power 7,500,000  00 

Net  charge  for  reservoir  to   irrigation $10,477,000  00 

Available  capacity,  640,000  acre-feet,  net  cost  per  acre-foot  available  $16  40 

Irrigable  area,  225,000  acres,  net  cost  per  acre 46  60 

As  to  the  total  acre  cost  we  have  used  certain  revised  estimates  made 
by  Mr.  Gault  of  the  main  canal  and  distribution  features,  indicating 
that  the  former  may  cost  about  $50  per  acre  and  the  latter  $37,  result- 
ing in  a  total  cost  exceeding  $130  per  acre.  It  is  possible  that  a  greater 
credit  may  be  secured  for  power,  against  wliicli  there  is  also  the  possi- 
bility that  requirements  as  to  unquestioned  safety  of  the  dam  may 
compel  large  additional  expenditures  over  those  estimated. 

The  project  is  one  w4iich  can  become  possible  only  through  full 
support  of  the  great  majority  of  landowners,  and  it  is  well  that  they 
have  a  general  knowledge  of  possible  cost  to  guide  them  in  their  further 
efforts,  for  which  purpose  such  figures  as  are  now  in  our  possession 
are  above  presented  in  this  report. 

Comparing  this  cost  with  the  cost  of  plan  A-4  in  the  1914  report, 
with  smaller  total  storage,  if  the  cost  of  that  plan  had  been  reduced  by 
probable  power  value  only  and  had  not  received  credit  for  flood  control, 
for  which  under  the  changed  water-right  conditions  the  reservoir 
contains  no  reservation,  the  acre  cost  as  then  estimated  would  have  been 
$65.  Additional  diversion  as  now  figured,  together  with  a  practically 
doubled  cost  of  labor  and  materials,  would,  roughly,  result  in  about 
the  same  acre  cost  as  is  now  figured  in  connection  with  a  changed  dam 
location. 

D.  C.  Henny. 
A.  J.  WiLCT. 

ITO]MER  IlAMIJlsr. 

W.  F.  I\IcClure. 
J.  L.  Savage. 
H.  J.  Gault. 

Red  Bluff,  California,  May  7,  1920. 

50667     1-28     4M  O 

14 — 50667 


ILklAJ. 

ELtlO-5 

■i  EiTos 


PHYSICAL 
SCIENCES 

BRARY 


■Normal  i 


.•■■;  El  368.1 


MinWSJor 
Operation/ 


Hydraulic 

=    Earth    =£ 

Blanket-. 


W^ 


■A':\ 


:^ 


/■■J -5  Concrete 


rEI. 


INSTALLED  CAPACITY 
110.000  H.R 


.-4-27,500  H.R  UNITS 


296 


v-"^%irf  ■rirninnno    Hnlo^   ^  rrc 


Dralnaq^  tioles,  S'crs. 


Orouf  Holes  10  crs  in 
each  row.  sfaqq&red 


191 


El    290 -y 


rH.W.5.  El  287,   Q  -  278,000 1  CfS. 


,■■-' ---Slope  Wall -'■■•■ 


El  2iS- 


^fr'  ^'^'r  ^/^        t^'  ^"^'f^'^T^' 


^p^^r^ 


-90- 


P^YSICAt 
^lENCES 


SECTION  THRU  POWER  HOUSE 


NOTE-  Section  of  dam  Same  as  shown  on  Dwq 
aic  w  Report  on  Iron  Canyon  Project.  May,  1910 
Power  Development  increasod  fromSO.oOO  HP  to  110  000  H  P 


50 

-1- 


-L. 


100 


SCALE    OF    FEET 


50667— pages  198-199 


DCPAKTMINT    Of     THE     iNTERIOR 
BUREAU    OF  ffecLAMAT/OfJ 
IRON  CANYON  PKOJECT- CALIFORNIA 

IRON  CANYON  DAM 

POWER  INSTALL ATION- 110.000 HP. 

PRELIMINARY  ESTIMATE  DRAWING 


CHecKtoXtirG^.  ...  APfROvEO /-. ■- 


SV-  41  I  BtPKl'^tY.CALtr,  7  27  244(D-/0'6 


667 — pages  198-199 


^^c. 


'■?  «1 


'i«-* 


'*=a 


f<^>^; 


-i._ 


ve4 


.Sctf*    in  fee* 
Ccnfour  interna/-  2Ff 

PKCLinitlflKY   C3TinmC  DRftWING 


^r- 


^f^  Oak  and 


SViZ     \Bfrke/ey.  Colr/rfti  S/9/S\  4/-0-/08 


-pages  198-199 


r^ 


\   / 


PLATE  19 


ClevTMaV'    --'•'•oi-.^ 


Ifanfarcin^  Sfee/  not  sfi^twn 

ffa/afa/ef- ffa//er6attr3  onPlfi-3  B-O'F-H 

■J-l  W 
Ho'Sts  and Hoisf  f^ouses  not  sAairn 


SECTIOn    £-£ 


f "carafe   for  pier  *o 
^^th    ordffred  i>y  ^rtgineer 


SECTtOn AfID £LCV/ITlOh   O-D 


■  ,j:<,,.>.v.^.<^t**j. 


^KT/on  /}no  £i£fiiT/on  ,9  ■  /j 


sccnon  /lAfo  CLEi'/iT/o/i  a3-»s 


seer  ion  ,9 no  ELEt/i^rion  k-k 


•^>\f,l — pages  198-199 
I 


SECT  I  on  J- J 


OMtRThteftTor  rut  tMrrinom 

auHEAU  o^  m£ct.An4Arfon 

/Hort  CAftran  ^majrcr-CAt/lVMr/A 

WEST  SIDE  LOW  UnCCA/UL 

DIVERSIOn    WODKS 

DETAILS_ 


s>^^i    \BerHetev.CalifrebN9!S^*l-D-li6' 


CHtCHtO.Ti  ^.f^,  A. 


r  uM '  c     ^v-* 


290 
280 
270 
260 
250 


'240L 


^iL2eo_ 

■^— == 

.—TOP   OF 

DIKE 

SLOPE  =  .00053 

■ 

^^^ 

GROUND 

SURFACE-; 

W 

' 

——_____ 

0*00 


10 


20 


30 


40 


50+00 


60 


70 


80 


90 


290 
280 
270 


2602 

250 ; 


240 


100+00 


CO 
CD 


100*00 


lBO+00 
PROFILE 


190+00 


<10.0>' 


TYPICAL   SECTION 


PRELIMINARY  ESTIMATE  DRA\WIN& 


DEPARTMENT  OF  THE   INTERIOR 
BUREAU  OF  RECLAMATiON 
IRON    CANYON  PROJECT-CALIFORNrA 
DIVERSION  WORKS 

DIKE  ON  EAST    SIDE 


DiiAwn,'KhT..  M.t  subkiittbdU,  7c2/atWi 

CHKCKEDUAi/  APPROVKD: ( 


SV-35    iBtRKEltT  CtUT  JuNiH'2S|4l>HI 


50C67— pages  198-199 


•n 


111'  I 

I  f ,--rj^-> ■•  I 

'\    '         '.'  '",    '     I    "  ' 

I         \  ■^    '  I  .      \         '^     ' 

',       -J,'^.  /  I  \        -J-'    ^  ' 
\         ■         <   '    ^        1        > 

^y --iji,--  ■ 

ItTTlirF 


.  1 1 1 !  LIJII 1 1  III 

vl i-  .t 


3j 


:* 


/"i/?/)'   or  fV¥tCRHOUOC 


3cale   !n  feet 


c/ip/ic/rr  or  wmt£»vay 

Msod    J I  ■ 
Siphons 

'tiTOtSt  it  SoeS  lJ7  'J7SOcf.a. 
Sluices 

j-70t3>->,s.oestSi '  mScf.a. 

Total         •    4d7S(i.f.3. 


3-  lOJ.OOO  c.f.3.     fIxDtjmed  W3.  £1.  ^36.0   \ 

19 '  f^ije   ajjumea    from  rating   curve  of  ^ 

U.5G.2.  Cayiny  J  fat  ion  above  f?ed  Bluff       §. 

LOW  V^aler  Cl  ^iTO  '<- 


a-  6500c  f^ 


E0G67— pages  198-199 


r  uni  c    I.C. 


H 


5EPT  12,1923 
Q'340O 


Q    AS   MEASURED  AT  RED 
45EPT.BK-5EPT.  15 — + — Sept.  18  • 
Q=3490    Q'3400  Q'3!50 


BLUFF   GAGING    STATION 
4- — Sept.  11  +5ept.21*- 


Q'  3740 


0-3660 


-SEPT.26,mi- 
Q-  5100 


+ 


Dec,I7I92! 
Q-4690 


I9Z  191  f90  189  IM 

DISTANCE   IN   MILES   FROM   COLLINSVILLE    AT  MOUTH   OF  RIVER 
(SACRAMENTO   IS  MILE  63) 


PROFILE  SHOWN   15  A  REPRODUCTION   OF  PROFILE  PREPARED   IN  THE 
U.S.ENGINEER    OFFICE.  SECOND  DISTRICT.  SAN  FRANCISCO.  CALIF.. 

ORIGINAL  PROFILE   REFERRED  TO  U.S.E.D.  DATUM  WHICH  IS  MEAN  LOWER 
LOW  WATER   IN   5UISUN  BAY. 

^^^'i^h}^^f^  REFERRED  TO   U.S.G.S.  DATUM,  (MEAN  SEA  LEVEL) 
WHICH    IS     3.6   FEET  ABOVE   U.S.E.D.  DATUM. 


eimilTMINT  Of  Tm  INTIKIOR 
•UDKAU    0*  RCCIAMATION 
IRON  CANVON  PROJECT- CAUfORN* 

PROFILE  OF  SACRAMENTO  RIVER 

RED  BlUFF  TO  MOONEY  ISLAND  SLOUCH 


MAW"  .t'"."'.?.!  .*.C.  ^MtiiTttBUrKC/tTXtf^- 

wv*n'jwi&ti?....t.'""»n /■ ' 

SV-36  IBKMLtt.Cmf.  6  17-15  U|-P-|(3 


60667 — pages  198-199 


ji'l'f-^        i^  Aj^l^ili  fY-,tj)(i'|;-  ^l-.T^*"^" 


IZ 


JX 


.A_ 


X-a^-, 


mwiKiias^     asK 


^-^ 


n^ 


tc 


jiu-i 


^0 
^8 

1 

i 

'|s'=l 

AMATlON 

N   PROJECT- 

0  FILES 

LOCATION 

iiii 
urn 

fl5i  = 

SJDL  5 
fe3_,S 

i 

§  ill 

^5  Z  "^ 

1=' 

iii 

T^ 


~-=^ 


ac-pf  fl//  /177  f&i  ntaus»MD  fnr,       S 


n    *  llp^' 


5 :  I 


-^-^^^ifJX 


I   IRON  CANYON  GRAVITY  CANAL   | 

STA     SZOO-00  ro  STA    7S00  •  00  -       V 


^""^ 


^ 


±t^' 


-l+l- 


J  f- 1 


.^^^ 


I 


%. i u. 


iMrfi*  sunrAct 


rr 


FT 


StOflr^    O-ISrCFT  PCftTHOUSAtlD. 


IRON  CANYON  GRAVITV  CANAL 
STA.  laOO^OO  TO  STA  8BB0*0O 
I ! 


ZGD 

2M       1 

•S 

1                    1 

o 

c  "•> 

■^, 

I    1    .,„lH^ 

"".c 

n    IBD 



mP-Is- 

iBO  a 

, 

^ 


c 


•Ma«  H.W  S  Soc 

Riv. 

" 5- 

DIKE 
.00071 

PHYSICAL 
SCIENCES 
LIBRARY 


■  tjt  Ma>  H  WS  ot  t^ofvf  Island 

Excovafion    2.112  900  CY 


W.S, 


? 

Section      !£     Un  lined 


13.5 


AT  OIVEPSION 

■Mai  H.VKS  Sac  Riv    "bo- 
at sro  o  *  oo    _  _ .  i      ; 


;-•  IB.O- 


NOTE 
If  concrete  linmq  is  found  advisable 
from  Diversion  Dam  to  Sta   'iSAtSS.  fhe 
section, as  shown  wfth  dike,  is  proposed 


DIVERSION    DAM    TO    MOONEY    ISLAND  POWER  PLANT 
Sta.  9*37   to    25A+33 
Q  •  6578    S.f 

(irrigation  and  PowerJ 


W.S.-; 


"C3 


4  Lininq 


^  47.0 


CANAL  SECTION  AT  MOONEY  ISLAND  POWER  PLANT  AND  WASTEWAY 
Sta.  254*33  to   259 'eo 
Q  •  6S00  S.f 


Sta  269+60  to  1175  +  00 
Q'2869S.f 


Excavation 

Borrow 

Concrete 


2  190.000  CY 
None 
77  500  CY 


Unlined  n  ■  02S 


Sta   1175+00  to  2045+00 
Q  -  2446    s.f. 


_ 


NOTE 

Capacity  of  unlined  sections  of  the  area 

indicoted  "  approximately  |  Q  shown. 
Bottom  widths  shown  ore   inside  of  imincj. 


Sta.  2045+00  to  2106+00 
Q  ■  2170  S.f. 


Excavation   880  000  CY 
Borrow  l  1.300 

Concrete        47.400 


'o 

r 

W.S,-; 
-o  4Lininq  ■• 

"o 

A 
5 

Un 

r+00 

(•-IE.O-»i/ 

■<< 

■  45  &5       n.-. 
•  .00015      V 
ined  n-.025  V' 

OIS 

sta 

2106 

-  25.0'  --- 

♦00  to  266 

200*  sf 

439 

2  75 

Wa»l 


Excavation  1.366  000   CY 

Borrow 

Concrete 


A-  364  24  n  -  015 
S  00015  V  •  408 
Unlmed  n-  025     v   ■  2  54 


Sta  2667+00   to  3674  +  00 
Q  '  I486  sf 


Excavation     I  534,000  CY 


Borrow 
Concrete 


2  000 
64  300 


A  ■  274  34 
5  ■  .00015 
uniined  n  -025 


.015 
3-7S 
2  31 


Sta.3674+00  to  4976+00 
Q'  1029  sf 


Excavation 

Borrow 

Concrete 


A  •  167  83 
5  ■  OOOIS 
Unlined  n'.02S 


,015 
3.19 
1.95 


Sta  4976+00  to  5725+50 
Q'  535  sf. 


,^---^     ?-l3  0  - 
Waste     ^y_ 


Excavation    124  000  CY 
Sorrow  I  400 

Concrete         10,300 


3limnq   -x,     k9.0« 

n 

V 
V 

-  12.0'-                  A    •    102  96 
S     ■   .00015 
Unlmed  n.. 025 

.015 
2  71 
163 

i>ta  5725+50  to  6060  +  50 
Q  '  279  S.f. 


Waste   -^^^^^^^^j' 


:fiy^-^ 


-6,4- 


Excavation    68,000   CY 
Borrow  4  800      ■ 

Concrete        5  200     • 

iita.  6060+50  to  6348+00 
Q-  64  sf 


A   ■    34  26  n 

5    ■  .OOOIS  V 

Unlined  n ',025        v 

PHYSICAL 


.015 
168 
I  09 


:C!ENCES 

mm 


50667 — pages  200-201 


NOTL 

Sections  lookinq  downstream 
Poadwoy  on  left  bank  (  East  side) 

PRELIMINARY   ESIIMATE  DRAWING 


DEPARTMENT    Of-    THE   INTERIOR 
BUREAU    OF    RECLAMATION 
IRON      CANYON     PROJECT-  CALIF- 
MAIN     CANAL 

TYPICAL  SECTIONS 


ORfcWN 


Di2'i^4^ 


SV-  3Z 


APPROVED. 


'r*rrff 


SegKEirrCfcLiF.  5  25  JsJ4i-P-n6 


/ 


he 

---  13.0' 

— -.>i 

"ao 

d 

f<— ,'•'-9.0'  •>■ 

_^ ^ 

^< 

k 

..J.... 

■---[•■ 

.   A  ^ 

N^ 

"C7> 

1 

K-i-- 

-I3.0' 

1 

-cr. 

^ 

-3  Lininq 

^ 

:x 13.0  — »i 


».-70-«< 


END  OF  PIPE  LINE    TO   ELDER    CREEK 

STA.  81*75   TO    557*20 
Q  =  378  S.F. 


EXCAVATION 
CONCRETE 


208.000  C.Y. 
16.200  C.Y. 


A  '    178.92        n.'  .015 
5  -■  .00015       Y=  2.93 


ELDER    CREEK  TO    THOMES    CREEK 

STA.  568*15   TO    980^24 
Q  -■  259  S.F. 


EXCAVATION 

181.000  cr. 

A  = 

97.5 

n  = 

.015 

CONCRETE 

12.600   U. 

5' 

.00015 

V  = 

2.66 

THOMES  CREEK  TO  E.  &  W.  CTR   LINE  .  T  4  N 

STA.  1003*26    TO     1114  +  34 
Q  =  125  S.F. 

EXCAVATION     54.000  CY.  A «  56.0  n^    .015 

CONCRETE         5.000  CY.  S  -  .00015        Y  --     2.23 


E.8W.  CTR  LINE.  T4N.  TO  N.BR.  OF  N.FORK  OF  RICE  CR. 

STA.  1214+34    TO    1364  +  53 
Q  =  51  S.F 
EXCAVATION        18,500  C.y:  A   ■    28.5  n   =    .015 

CONCRETE  2.400  CV.  S    -   .00015        V   =      1.78 


PRELIMINARY   ESTIMATE  DRAWING 


DEPARTMENT    OF     THE     INTERIOR 

BUREAU    OF    RECLAMATION 
IRON   CANYON   PROJECT-    CALIFORNIA 

RED  BANK   PUMP  CANAL 
TYPICAL  SECTIONS 


. APPWOVCP 


SV- 41  iBKKtuT.ULif,        I^ID-II'T 


150667 — piiges  200-201 


smamt^^BBrm 


m 


THIS   BOOK   IS   DUE  ON   THE   LAST   DATE 
STAMPED    BELOW 


\\ 


BOOKS   REQUESTED  BY  ANOTHER   BORROWER 
ARE   SUBJECT  TO   IMMEDIATE   RECALL 


RECEIVED 

FKBidO  1988 

PHYS  SCI  LIBRARY 


ft1 


J 


J UN  0  7J^90 


07/^1 


D 


JUiM  2  S  1SS 


tHYS  SCI  library: 


SEP  1  9  1996 
APR  1  3  2000 


JAN  1  9  2000 
JAN  2  7  2000  REG'O 

\UG  2  8  2000  1^1 
RECEIVED 
AUG  2  9  2000 
PSL 


LIBRARY,   UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,   DAVIS 

Book  Slip-Series  458 


3  1175  00671  2015 


PHYSICAL 
SCIEKCIS 

LIBRAW 


LIBRART 

UNiVERSITY  OF  CAUFORNX& 

DAVIS 

111583 


f 


•  I 


; 


■ 


